Section 1 FINAL - Government of Saskatchewan

AREVA Resources Canada Inc. September 2011 Midwest Project EIS

Page i

MIDWEST PROJECT Environmental Impact Statement

SECTION 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 General.................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Location and Purpose ...........................................................................1-2

1.2.1 Project Location ......................................................................................1-2 1.2.2 Midwest Project Outline ..........................................................................1-2 1.2.3 Purpose of the Project and Need for the Project.....................................1-3 1.2.4 Project Background.................................................................................1-4

1.2.4.1 Midwest Project.......................................................................1-4 1.2.4.2 The McClean Lake Operation .................................................1-6 1.2.4.3 Transportation and Utility Corridor ..........................................1-9

1.3 Requirements for an Environmental Assessment .........................................1-10

1.3.1 Determination of Requirement for an EA under the Environmental Assessment Act of Saskatchewan ........................................................1-10

1.3.2 Determination of Requirement for an EA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ............................................................1-10

1.3.3 Type of Federal Environmental Assessment ........................................1-11 1.3.4 Identification of Other Federal Authorities.............................................1-12 1.3.5 Federal and Provincial Coordination in the EA......................................1-12 1.3.6 Requirements for Stakeholder Consultation..........................................1-12 1.3.7 Public Registry ......................................................................................1-13

1.4 Project Proponent .............................................................................................1-14

1.4.1 Corporate Structure...............................................................................1-14 1.4.2 AREVA’s Approach to Sustainable Development .................................1-15 1.4.3 Quality Management at McClean Lake Operation ................................1-16 1.4.4 Integrated Approach to Environmental Protection ................................1-17

1.5 Document Organization....................................................................................1-18

1.5.1 Organization of the EIS .........................................................................1-18 1.5.2 Cross-Reference of the PSG&CSD with the EIS ..................................1-20

Section 1 Introduction


Page 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

In December 2005, AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (AREVA) submitted a proposal to Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (MOE), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) to extend mining activities at the McClean Lake Operation to include the Midwest Project (the Project). AREVA was informed that the proposed Project would require an environmental assessment (EA) under both The Environmental Assessment Act of Saskatchewan (SEAA 2002) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 1992). As a result, AREVA is required to conduct an EA and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for technical and public review.

It is noted that a previous proposal to develop the Project has received EA approvals. The approvals were granted by the federal and provincial governments (April 1998) after independent public review by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan (Joint Panel). Recent and projected favourable uranium market conditions have led to the review and optimization of the Project by AREVA. The basic concept of mining the Midwest ore body and processing the ore at the JEB mill of the nearby McClean Lake Operation remains the same. However, several changes are proposed to the Project relative to what was previously reviewed and approved. These include a change to the mining method from underground to open pit, construction of a transportation and utility corridor connecting the Midwest site to the McClean Lake Operation, providing a dedicated route for the haulage of ore and the placement of an effluent pipeline and power line, and an expansion of the JEB milling facility.

The scope of the EA to be completed for the proposed Project has been outlined in detail in a guidance document. This guidance document, entitled “Project-Specific Guidelines and Comprehensive Study Scoping Document, Environmental Impact Assessment of the Midwest Project” (PSG&CSD; CEA Agency 2007) is found in Appendix I. The document, jointly developed by MOE and the federal government, and hereafter referred to as the PSG&CSD, describes the basis for completing the EA and focuses the assessment on relevant issues and concerns.

The scope of the EA to be conducted for the proposed Midwest development is defined by the EA Guidelines developed jointly by MOE and the CEA Agency

The currently proposed Project represents a change to the 1998 EA approvals and therefore requires that a new EA be completed

AREVA was informed that the proposed development of the Midwest Project will require an EA and preparation of an EIS



Page 1-2

This EIS document presents the results of the EA carried-out by AREVA, including the technical support studies, and the development and implementation of a public consultation program, which as outlined in the PSG&CSD, were delegated to AREVA.

1.2 Project Location and Purpose

1.2.1 Project Location

The Midwest site is located near the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan, approximately 700 km north of Saskatoon and 350 km north of the town of La Ronge via air (Figure 1.2-1). The Athabasca Basin is a sparsely populated region of northern Saskatchewan, with a total population between 2,792 (Saskatchewan Northern Affairs 2003) and 3,539 (Saskatchewan Health 2005) residents. The Basin covers an area of approximately 100,000 square kilometers and a perimeter of approximately 1500 km. An access road, approximately 2 kilometres (km) in length, connects the Midwest site to the end of Provincial Road 905 near Points North, a small service, freight forwarding and airport facility. Currently, the Midwest site consists of a few surface facilities that were constructed to support underground test mining activities conducted between 1988 and 1989. The McClean Lake Operation JEB mill site lies approximately 15 km east of the Midwest deposit as shown in Figure 1.2-2.

1.2.2 Midwest Project Outline

The key features of the proposed Project are briefly outlined below:

the Midwest ore body lies below Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake and is within the current surface lease boundaries of the Project;

it is planned to increase the size of the surface lease to accommodate all the proposed mining facilities and transportation and utility corridor within the new lease area;

the mining methodology will be open pit mining similar to that successfully practiced at the McClean Lake Operation since 1995;

all waste rock generated by the Project will be managed at the Midwest site;

a single transportation and utility corridor will provide a dedicated ore haulage road, a pipeline and electrical power line corridor, and will

This document represents the results of an EA carried-out by AREVA

The key features of the Midwest Project are provided herein

The Midwest uranium deposit is located in the eastern Athabasca basin of northern Saskatchewan approximately 700 km north of Saskatoon



Page 1-3

connect the Midwest site to the JEB mill site at the McClean Lake Operation;

mine water will be treated at the Midwest site and transferred via the pipeline to the McClean Lake Operation for release to the existing McClean Lake Operation Sink/Vulture Treated Effluent Management System (S/V TEMS);

the Midwest ore will be processed in a modified and expanded JEB mill;

assessing the Project for a final production of approximately 27 million lbs U3O8 equivalent (or 10,385 tonnes U) per year. The JEB mill has been previously assessed to approximately 24 million lbs U3O8 equivalent (or 9,230 tonnes U) of annual production (CLMC, 1995);

tailings generated by the milling of the Midwest ore will be disposed of in the approved JEB tailings management facility (TMF); and

no changes will be required to JEB water treatment plant (WTP) to accommodate this Project.

1.2.3 Purpose of the Project and Need for the Project

The purpose of the Project is to mine the Midwest ore body and to produce uranium concentrate (which is commonly referred to as yellowcake), within the framework of sustainable development applied by AREVA to all of its activities.

The Project is needed to add to the ore reserves available for processing at the McClean Lake Operation and thereby add to the positive economic, employment and business opportunities related to uranium developments in northern Saskatchewan.

From a broader perspective, world uranium production currently falls far short of projected future demands for generation of clean electricity (as an alternative to electricity generated by fossil fuel consumption). Uranium from the Midwest deposit will help meet the future needs for nuclear power, which will help reduce, on a global scale, greenhouse gas emissions. The advantages of nuclear power are that it is clean, safe and affordable, has predictable costs and security of supply, and facilitates grid stability. Uranium is also the raw material used for production of a wide range of radioisotopes in nuclear reactors. These radioisotopes are used in research, medicine and industry.

The purpose of the project is to mine the Midwest deposit and to produce uranium concentrate

The Project will add to the ore reserves needed to sustain the positive economic, employment and business activities

Uranium contributes to national and international sustainable development through its use to generate nuclear power



Page 1-4

1.2.4 Project Background

The Project, as described in this document, consists of the following components:

developing the Midwest ore deposit as an open pit mine;

modifying and expanding the JEB mill facility to accommodate processing of the Midwest ore, and

developing a transportation and utility corridor that will be utilized as a dedicated road linking the Midwest site with the existing McClean Lake Operation.

Relevant background to each of these components is described in the following sections.

1.2.4.1 Midwest Project

Exploration in the Midwest area was carried out starting in 1968. Most of the work was concentrated on the area near South McMahon Lake, where uranium-mineralized boulders were found, culminating in the discovery of the Midwest ore body in January 1978. Between 1978 and 1980, more than 400 holes were drilled to delineate the deposit and to further explore the property. The operator of the Midwest Project during this period was Canada Wide Mines Ltd. (CWML), who evaluated mining alternatives and carried out engineering studies related to the milling process. In 1981, CWML prepared a draft EIS for the development of the project involving open pit mining and on-site milling of the ore. Although the EIS was submitted to the regulatory agencies, it was not subjected to formal review due to a corporate decision to defer the development of the Midwest Project.

In 1987, the Project was reactivated when Denison Mines Inc. (Denison), in joint venture with PNC Exploration (Canada) Company (PNC), acquired a 60% interest in the Project and became the operator. An EIS (MJV 1988) for an underground exploration program (test mine) was submitted and approved in 1988. Work at the test mine commenced in 1988 and was competed in 1989. The program consisted of: dewatering a portion of Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake directly above the ore body; sinking a shaft to a depth of about 185 metres; driving a crosscut above the ore body about 170 metres below surface; and carrying out an evaluation of ground conditions, hydrogeology and test mining using blind-hole boring technology.

Extensive exploration led to the discovery of Midwest ore body in 1978; in 1981, a proposal for an open pit mine and on-site milling was submitted, but withdrawn prior to formal review due to unfavorable market conditions

An EIS for an underground exploration program (test mine) was submitted and approved in 1988; test mining program was carried out during 1988/1989

Three main components to the proposed Project are discussed in this section



Page 1-5

The experience and data gained during test mining led Denison to submit an EIS in 1991 proposing an underground mine, a mill, and a tailings disposal area (MJV 1991). The proposal was subsequently amended in 1992 to a complementary development of the Midwest and McClean Lake Projects, which proposed the milling of Midwest ore at the McClean Lake mill, eliminating the need for both a mill and a tailings disposal facility at the Midwest site (Minatco 1992). As part of the complementary development agreement, Minatco Ltd. became operator of the new Midwest Joint Venture (MJV).

In April 1991, the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan announced a joint federal-provincial EA review to consider three uranium mine developments in northern Saskatchewan. The reviews were conducted in accordance with SEAA, and the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (EARPGO). A joint review panel was appointed in August 1991.

In December 1993, the Midwest Project, as described in the 1991 EIS and 1992 amendment, was rejected by the federal and provincial governments as a result of recommendations contained in a report by the Joint Panel (Joint Panel 1993).

In July 1993, Minatco Ltd. became a COGEMA subsidiary. COGEMA redesigned the Midwest development proposal, and submitted an EIS on August 31, 1995 (referred to as the 1995 EIS) (COGEMA, 1995) which responded to the issues outlined in the Joint Panel’s previous review. The 1995 EIS adopted a promising new mining method, jet-boring in frozen ground, which was undergoing evaluation at the Cigar Lake underground test mine. It also included off-site milling of ores and tailings disposal at the McClean Lake Operation. The governments of Saskatchewan and Canada referred the review of the 1995 EIS to the Joint Panel. The Joint Panel requested additional information from COGEMA, and addenda were submitted on March 1996, May 1996, October 1996, and May 1997.

The Joint Panel concluded, based on COGEMA’s submissions, nineteen days of public hearings, and written submissions from various stakeholders, that the revised Midwest proposal was substantially better than the one rejected in 1993. The 1997 Joint Panel report (Joint Panel, 1997), recommended approval with conditions for mining and milling of the Midwest ore body as proposed in the 1995 EIS.

Submission of an EIS proposing an underground mine was submitted in 1991; in 1992, a complementary development of the Midwest and McClean Lake projects, with milling of Midwest ore at the McClean Lake mill, was proposed

A joint federal-provincial review panel was appointed in August 1991 to review three projects, which included Midwest

The Joint Panel rejected the Midwest proposal

Revised Midwest proposal, involving jet-boring method, was submitted for Joint Panel review in 1995

Joint Panel recommended the approval of the Midwest Project in the 1997 report



Page 1-6

The federal and provincial governments accepted the recommendations of the Joint Panel, and approved the development of the Midwest Project in 1998 (Government of Canada 1998), (Government of Saskatchewan 1998).

Despite the granting of environmental approvals in 1998, development of the Project has not occurred. Several economic and social factors have been responsible for this: the costs associated with the jet boring mining technology are substantially higher than originally envisioned, approximately 85% of the ore could be recovered with this technology, and the open pit mining knowledge and experience gained by the McClean Lake Operation work force would not be utilized at the Midwest Project, if mined by jet boring. In 2005, COGEMA submitted the current Project Description outlining the proposed use of open pit mining to address these issues (COGEMA 2005). The proposed open pit mine is an economically and environmentally viable approach, has the potential to recover more uranium, and by utilizing the experiences gained of the northern work force and contractors employed by the McClean Lake Operation, will provide increased benefits and opportunities to the northern work force.

The Joint Panel, in arriving at their 1997 recommendations, outlined the major concerns raised during the review of the initial 1991/92 proposal, and provided a comparison of how the 1995 proposal addressed the key issues. This comparison is extracted from the Joint Panel report (Joint Panel, 1997) and reproduced in the first two columns of Table 1.2-1. The third column notes how the current proposal continues to address these concerns and further improves the Project.

1.2.4.2 The McClean Lake Operation

Uranium mineralization was first discovered on the McClean Lake site in 1979. Substantial additional mineralization was discovered during the 1980’s. The proposed McClean Lake Project (Minatco 1991) underwent Joint Panel review from 1991 to 1993. Based on the recommendations of the Joint Panel report (Joint Panel, 1993), government approvals for the McClean Lake Project were issued in December 1993 (Government of Canada 1993, Government of Saskatchewan 1993).

Licensing by provincial and federal regulators, and initial site construction work, began in 1994. The JEB ore body was mined from 1995 to 1997, and following further regulatory licensing, the mined-out JEB pit was converted into the JEB TMF. Subsequent to further licensing for the operation of the

Federal and provincial governments approved the project in 1998

The change in the mining method adopted in the current proposal responds to several factors

Mineralization was first discovered in 1979, followed by the joint federal-provincial EA review process from 1991 to 1993, and project licensing in stages starting in 1994

McClean Lake Project construction began in 1994, mill production commenced in June 1999

The current proposal addresses concerns raised by the Joint Panel in 1993



Page 1-7

mill and the TM, milling of ore commenced in June 1999. Since that time, the mining of Sue C (1997-2002), Sue A (2005-2006), Sue E (2006-2008) and Sue B (completed in 2008) ore bodies has been completed.

In parallel with the construction of the JEB mill for the McClean Lake Operation, the Joint Panel, between 1995 and 1997, reviewed the project proposals for the Cigar Lake and Midwest projects, which proposed processing of ores from these projects at the McClean Lake Operation. The EAs were based on an annual production at the JEB mill of 24 million lbs U3O8 equivalent from all ore sources. Based on the recommendations of the Joint Panel for these projects (Joint Panel 1997), government approvals of the Cigar Lake and Midwest projects were issued in 1998. Licensing for construction of the Cigar Lake mine, and licensing for the construction of the expanded JEB mill (to receive and process high grade ore from Cigar Lake) were subsequently granted. Construction of the JEB mill expansion to receive Cigar Lake ore was predominately completed in 2006, while construction of the Cigar Lake mine is ongoing.

The annual licensed JEB mill production capacity at the 1999 start-up of milling operations was 6 million lbs U3O8 equivalent. In 2001, the licensed annual production rate was increased to 8 million lbs U3O8 equivalent subsequent to completion of a screening assessment under the CEAA. No physical modifications were required for this increase in production.

An extensive exploration program in the Sue area led to the discovery of additional economic reserves in the Sue E area, immediately south of the existing Sue C pit. The Sue E ore body was not part of the original 1993 McClean Lake approval, and its development required an EA (COGEMA 2004) to meet both federal and provincial requirements, which included a CEA Agency screening and a provincial EIS). EA approvals for the Sue E Project were obtained in July 2005. The 2004 Sue E EIS (COGEMA 2004) re-affirmed, with the inclusion of the mining and milling of Sue E that the production originally envisioned at the McClean Lake Operation which was assessed by the Joint Panel and approved by federal and provincial governments was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Under the 2004 Sue E EIS, the fully developed project entailed a JEB mill capable of an annual production rate of 24 million lbs U3O8 equivalent. That is, the 2004 Sue E EIS included all ore sources identified in the 1995 EIS, which was reviewed by the Joint Panel, including the JEB, Sue A, B, C,

Joint Panel review of Cigar Lake and Midwest projects in 1995-1997 included processing of ores from these projects at McClean Lake

At start-up annual production capacity was 6 million pounds U3O8 equivalent

The Sue E ore body was not part of the original McClean Lake approval

The Sue E EIS reviewed the mining and milling of all ore sources identified in the 1995 assessment in conjunction with the Sue E deposit



Page 1-8

McClean Lake underground, Midwest, and Cigar Lake deposits, in conjunction with the Sue E deposit.

As outlined in the 2004 Sue E EIS (COGEMA 2004), the maximum uranium production for the McClean Lake and Midwest ores is constrained by the tonnage rate at which ore can be ground and processed through the JEB mill (a “front end” process constraint). In contrast, the maximum uranium production while processing Cigar Lake ore is constrained by the maximum flow rate of uranium bearing solution that can be processed to uranium concentrate (a “back end” process constraint).

An amendment to the McClean Lake operating licence to construct the JEB mill expansion was approved in 2005. This project, now completed, provides the capability to receive high grade ore from Cigar Lake and process 12 million lbs of U3O8 equivalent annually through the “front end” of the mill and 12 million lbs of U3O8 equivalent annual production through the “back end” of the mill. This was referred to as the 12/12 case in the 2004 Sue E EIS (COGEMA 2004), and represents a partial implementation of the approved JEB mill.

With the anticipated production ramp-up at the Cigar Lake mine, “front end” feed to the mill will approach 24 million lbs U3O8 equivalent per year. This annual production rate entails 18 million lbs U3O8 equivalent per year of production from Cigar Lake, and 6 million lbs U3O8 equivalent per year of production from McClean and Midwest ore sources. This increase in JEB mill production capacity, referred to as 24/24 case, represents the complete implementation of the project detailed in the 1995 Midwest (COGEMA 1995) and Cigar Lake EISs, which were approved by the federal and provincial governments in 1998. This case was re-evaluated in the 2004 Sue E EIS and concluded that the project was not likely to cause significant adverse effects.

In 2006, a joint Cameco-AREVA EA was completed (the Rabbit Lake Solution Processing Project) (Cameco and AREVA 2006), which proposed to use excess capacity at the nearby Rabbit Lake mill to process uranium bearing solution generated from Cigar Lake ore. This project, referred to as the 24/12 case in the 2004 Sue E EIS (COGEMA 2004), includes a uranium bearing solution loadout facility at the McClean Lake site, transport of approximately 12 million lbs U3O8 equivalent annually in solution form to Cameco’s Rabbit Lake Operation, and final processing at the Rabbit Lake mill (Cameco and AREVA 2006). The Rabbit Lake Solution Processing Project received EA approval in August 2008.

Maximum uranium production through the mill

An amendment to construct the JEB mill expansion to process Cigar Lake ore was approved in 2005

With the anticipated scale-up of production at the Cigar Lake mine the mill will approach 24 million pounds U3O8 equivalent

The current plan is to utilize excess capacity at the nearby Rabbit Lake mill to process uranium bearing solution generated from Cigar Lake ore



Page 1-9

The current Midwest Project, which is the subject of this EA, includes a slightly quicker production rate for Midwest ore. This proposal, when added to the production outlined in the 2004 Sue E EIS (COGEMA 2004), will result in an annual production capacity of 27 million lbs U3O8 equivalent in the incoming ore. This proposed production increase exceeds what was reviewed by the Joint Panel, and what was reviewed and approved through the joint federal-provincial Sue E screening EA process. For the purpose of establishing an EA envelope for the Midwest Project, the intent is to show that the previously approved annual production rate of 24 million lbs U3O8 equivalent can be increased to 27 million lbs U3O8 equivalent (an increase of 12 ½ %). For clarity, this scenario will be referred to as the 27/27 JEB mill production case for the current Project.

Advancement of the Rabbit Lake Solution Processing Project would result in a JEB mill operational configuration capable of processing 27 million lbs U3O8 equivalent annually through the “front end”, and 16 million pounds U3O8 equivalent production annually through the “back end”. This is referred to as the 27/16 case, and is expected to represent the future licensing application for the Midwest Project. This falls within the 27/27 case currently proposed to define the EA envelope.

As outlined in Section 3, mill modifications are required to process Midwest ore. The assessment of a 27 million pound annual mill production rate forms part of this assessment. The proposed mill modifications will result in some changes in the JEB mill water balance but will not require any changes to the current waste water management systems at the McClean Lake Operation.

1.2.4.3 Transportation and Utility Corridor

It is proposed to construct a single transportation and utility corridor that will provide a dedicated haulage road between the Midwest and McClean Lake sites, and will also provide a utility corridor for pipelines and potential power lines. This component was not part of earlier EAs. However, the previously proposed ore haulage along Provincial Road 905, was identified as a concern by the Joint Panel. AREVA believes that a dedicated road improves the Midwest Project, and has identified routing options to be considered during the EA process.

The proposal is to mill the Midwest ore, in additional to other ore previously approved at the JEB mill at 27 million pounds equivalent per year

The proposed Rabbit Lake Solution Processing Project falls within the scope of the current proposal

This assessment will be based on the expanded JEB mill production capacity of 27 million lbs. U3O8 equivalent per year

A dedicated haul road is proposed, which represents an improvement from public safety perspective



Page 1-10

1.3 Requirements for an Environmental Assessment

1.3.1 Determination of Requirement for an EA under the Environmental Assessment Act of Saskatchewan

The Midwest Project previously underwent a Joint Panel review (Joint Panel 1997) and obtained EA approval under SEAA. The current Midwest Project proposal represents a change to the 1998 approval, as it does not fully conform to the terms and conditions of the 1998 approval.

In Saskatchewan, a change to an approved development is subject to the provisions of section 16 of SEAA. AREVA has been directed to complete an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the proposed Project, pursuant to section 16(2)(c) of SEAA, and prepare and submit an EIS to MOE.

1.3.2 Determination of Requirement for an EA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

The current Midwest Project proposal, as outlined in this document, is an undertaking in relation to a physical work and, as such, is defined as a project under section 2(1)(a) of the CEAA.

The implementation of the Midwest Project will require a licensing decision(s) by the CNSC. The issuance or amendment of a CNSC licence under the Nuclear Safety Control Act (NSCA) is a "trigger" under the Law List Regulations of the CEAA.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is participating in the Midwest Project review due to its regulatory role in issuing a licence for the operation of an explosives factory and/or magazine under the Explosives Act. As well, the implementation of the Project will require an authorization for harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, and may require permitting under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The federal agencies responsible for the administration of these Acts are the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Transport Canada (TC) respectively. The issuance of a permit or licence under these three Acts is a "trigger" under the Law List Regulations of the CEAA.

The CNSC, NRCan, DFO and TC have determined that they are responsible authorities (RAs) under the federal Act. Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of CEAA, the responsible authorities are to ensure the conduct

The Midwest Project received Ministerial approval in 1998

The current proposed Midwest Project represents a change to the 1998 approval and an EIS is required

The proposed Midwest Project, as outlined in this document, is an undertaking in relation to a physical work

It will also require authorization under the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and Explosives Act

The implementation of the Midwest Project will require a licensing decision(s) by the CNSC

The RAs are CNSC, NRCan, DFO and TC



Page 1-11

of an EA and the preparation of an EA report before the proposed approval decision and authorizations can be made pursuant to the respective Acts.

There are no identified exclusions from EA for the Midwest Project, pursuant to section 7 of the CEAA and Schedule I of the Exclusion List Regulations of the CEAA.

1.3.3 Type of Federal Environmental Assessment

The responsible authorities, CNSC, DFO, NRCan and TC have determined that components of the proposed Midwest Project are described in paragraph 19(a) of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the federal Act, as described below:

“19. The proposed construction, decommissioning or abandonment, or an expansion that would result in an increase of more than 35 per cent, of

(a) a uranium mine, a uranium mill or a waste management system any of which is on a site that is not within the boundaries of an existing licensed uranium mine or mill;”

The Comprehensive Study List Regulations define a waste management system as having the meaning assigned in section 1 of the Uranium Mines and Mills Regulations. That is, a waste management system is a system for collecting, transporting, receiving, treating, processing, storing or disposing of the wastes that are produced as a result of the licensed activity at a uranium mine or mill. Therefore, the pipeline that would be constructed along the utility corridor for the purpose of transporting waste water from the Midwest site to the McClean Lake site is considered a waste management system. Because the pipeline would be constructed on lands that are not currently under licence by the CNSC, paragraph 19(a) of the Comprehensive Study Regulations of the CEAA would apply. In addition, a portion of the waste rock disposal pile may extend across the boundaries of the existing licensed area, which would also trigger paragraph 19(a) of the Comprehensive Study Regulations of the CEAA.

The responsible authorities have therefore concluded that the EA process required is a comprehensive study. The conduct of the comprehensive study EA and the preparation of an assessment report, pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the CEAA, has been delegated to AREVA. The

There are no identified exclusions from environmental assessment

The preparation of a comprehensive study EA has been delegated to AREVA

The federal RA’s have determined that a Comprehensive Study type EA is required



Page 1-12

responsible authorities must, however, ensure that the EA is completed in accordance with the CEAA.

1.3.4 Identification of Other Federal Authorities

Pursuant to the Federal Coordination Regulations under the CEAA, the following federal departments/agencies with an interest related to their mandate are participating in the review of the Midwest Project as expert Federal Authorities (FAs) in relation to the Project: Environment Canada (EC); Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC); and Health Canada (HC).

1.3.5 Federal and Provincial Coordination in the EA

Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2005), federal and provincial EA processes directed respectively by the CEAA and SEAA, are coordinated for projects with joint federal and provincial jurisdiction, where not limited by individual statutory or process requirements of the respective processes. Information requirements of both federal and provincial agencies, as reflected in the PSG&CSD, are considered during the assessment so that the information in this EIS meets the requirements of both the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada.

Under the above agreement, the Province of Saskatchewan, Environmental Assessment Branch, is the lead agency and contact for the Midwest Project. Working with the Province of Saskatchewan on this Project is the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) of the CEA Agency.

1.3.6 Requirements for Stakeholder Consultation

For the purpose of the EA, the development and implementation of a public consultation program has been delegated to AREVA. AREVA has and will continue to carry out a comprehensive program, including notification of, and consultation with, the potentially affected stakeholders, including the local public. The consultation assists in identifying questions and issues to be addressed in this EIS. Various media are used to inform and engage stakeholders in the assessment.

The federal RAs and MOE also have established a public consultation process in the review and decision making process which satisfy both the

Development and implementation of a public consultation program has been delegated to AREVA

Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (1999), federal and provincial EA processes are coordinated for projects with joint federal and provincial jurisdiction

Under the above agreement, the Province of Saskatchewan, Environmental Assessment Branch, is the lead agency and contact

The expert federal authorities (FAs) reviewing the project are EC, INAC, and HC



Page 1-13

federal and provincial Acts. In accordance with subsection 21(1) of the CEAA, the RAs are required to consult with the public with respect to the proposed scope of the Midwest Project for the purpose of the federal EA, the factors proposed to be considered, the proposed scope of those factors, and the ability of the comprehensive study process to address issues relating to the Project. The RAs must complete a screening report, pursuant to subsection 18(1)(a) and (b), which will serve as the basis for a Commission decision pursuant to subsection 21.1(1). This recommendation document is referred to as the Track Report.

On April 12, 2007, the CNSC held a public hearing to provide the public an opportunity to review, comment and present interventions before the Commission on the PSG&CSD, and the Track Report as prepared by the RAs. Following the public hearing, the Track Report was submitted to the federal Minister with recommendations. The federal Minister issued his decision in September 2007 that the EA process should continue as a comprehensive study. In addition, the draft PSG&CSD were subjected to a 30 day public review in keeping with the Provincial EA process, following which relevant comments were incorporated into the document.

As the joint federal-provincial EA process continues, there will be additional opportunities for the public to review and comment to the province and federal RAs on this EIS and the draft Comprehensive Study Report. The public will further have the opportunity to comment on the final Comprehensive Study Report, which will serve as the basis for a decision, pursuant to Section 21(1) of the CEAA, by the federal Minister of Environment.

1.3.7 Public Registry

A public registry for the Midwest Project EA has been established, as required by the CEA Agency. This includes identification of the Midwest Project EA in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, which can be accessed on the Internet web site of the agency (www.ceaa.gc.ca). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry reference number for the Midwest Project is 06-03-17519.

In 2009 the Project was accepted to by managed by the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO), information on the Project and its status can also be located on the MPMO Tracker (http://www.mpmo-bggp.gc.ca/index-eng.php).

The Canadian EA Registry reference number for this project is 06-03-17519

On April 12, the CNSC held a public hearing to consider the PSG and Track Report recommendations to the federal Minister of Environment

Additional opportunities will arise for the public to review and comment on the Comprehensive Study Report

The Midwest Project EIS is currently managed by the MPMO

The CEAA and MOE established public consultation process includes review of the PSG, the Track Report, the EIS and the draft Comprehensive Study Report



Page 1-14

1.4 Project Proponent

AREVA is the operator and licensee of the Midwest Project. Ownership of the Project is presently as follows:

AREVA Resources Canada Inc. 69.16%

Denison Mines Inc. 25.17%

OURD (Canada) Co. Ltd. 5.67%

AREVA is the operator and licensee of the McClean Lake Operation. It has the same owners, with slight variation in shares as follows:

AREVA Resources Canada Inc. 70.0%

Denison Mines Inc. 22.5%

OURD (Canada) Co. Ltd 7.5%

1.4.1 Corporate Structure

AREVA is a Canadian company, headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The company is a 100% subsidiary of the AREVA group of companies headquartered in Paris, France. AREVA is a world leader in nuclear energy, with manufacturing facilities in over 40 countries and a sales network in over 100 countries. Approximately 58,000 people are employed by AREVA.

The AREVA group’s corporate goal is to provide a comprehensive scope of services in every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle (Figure 1.4-1), and of power reactor supply and services. The uranium concentrate provided by AREVA enters the nuclear fuel cycle at the front end.

AREVA represents a major investment by the Mining Business Group of the AREVA group, which holds world-wide gold and uranium interests. The other significant uranium production centers, in addition to Saskatchewan operations, are two projects in Niger, an in situ leach projects in Kazakhstan and a leach pilot project in Namibia. The AREVA group also has extensive experience in reclamation and decommissioning at former uranium production sites in France, Gabon and the United States.

In Canada, AREVA activities can be broadly grouped into projects where it is the operator, those it does not operate but holds an equity interest, and exploration activities. In the past 40 years, AREVA, and its predecessor companies have been involved in uranium exploration, and in project

AREVA is part of the AREVA group, a world leader in nuclear energy.

AREVA’s aim is to provide a comprehensive scope of services in every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle

AREVA represents a major investment by the Mining Business Group of the AREVA group, which holds world-wide gold and uranium interests

AREVA is the operator and licensee of the Midwest Project

AREVA is the operator and licensee of the McClean Lake Operation



Page 1-15

development and operation in the Athabasca Basin. Projects operated by AREVA in northern Saskatchewan include Cluff Lake (with a majority of the decommissioning activities completed in 2006), McClean Lake, and Midwest. AREVA also has significant minority interests in the Cigar Lake, McArthur River, and Key Lake projects. The company maintains an active exploration program.

1.4.2 AREVA’s Approach to Sustainable Development

The Saskatchewan uranium industry has been practicing the principles of sustainable development before the term came into common usage in 1987. The social partnership and high level of environmental protection achieved by uranium operations have allowed economic development to occur in northern Saskatchewan today without compromising the future of the land or the people. AREVA is committed to maintaining and enhancing this balance between the environmental, social, and economic performance.

Sustainable development, as defined in the Brundtland report (United Nations 1987), is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development fosters long-term protection of the environment and its inhabitants. Its success hinges on balancing three aspects, which are: environmental protection (including worker occupational health and safety), social responsibility, and economic performance.

AREVA is committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace for its employees. This is achieved through comprehensive and effective programs for occupational health and safety and radiation protection. The Midwest Project will be operated by the McClean Lake Operation, adapting the policies and programs currently in place at the McClean Lake Operation. The success of these programs is evident in McClean Lake Operation’s performance with respect to worker exposure and safety records. AREVA is also committed to the principle that activities related to the Midwest Project are a temporary use of the land, and is committed to protecting the environment in both the short and the long-term. The operational focus is minimizing waste production, and having in place appropriate waste management facilities and systems, and effective mitigation measures. As well, reclamation and decommissioning strategies to ensure long-term protection are an integral part of initial facility design and ongoing operations. Various activities come to an end during the operational period, and

The Saskatchewan uranium industry has been practicing the principles of sustainable development

Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations

AREVA is committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace for its employees; AREVA is further committed to protecting the environment in both the short and the long- term

AREVA and its predecessor companies have been involved in uranium exploration, and in project development and operation in the Athabasca Basin for four decades



Page 1-16

progressive reclamation, where appropriate, will be undertaken to return the land to a stable state, capable of supporting its former use.

Sustainable development also involves consideration of nearby communities and embracing social responsibility and social partnerships. Various initiatives and programs, developed through partnership, are in place to continually improve dialogue and enhance trust and support among employees and in the communities affected by the Project activities, and to increase the capacity for these community members to participate in the developments. Northern residents of Saskatchewan benefit economically from the developments, either directly through employment, or indirectly through participation by northern businesses. Currently, about 280 AREVA employees and contractors work at the McClean Lake Operation, of which over 50% of the workforce are residents of northern Saskatchewan, with about a third of the workforce being residents of the Athabasca Basin. Approximately 80 additional employees will be required to operate the Midwest Project. AREVA continually seeks to increase the current level of northern participation through a range of scholarships, apprenticeships and training programs that are made available to northern residents.

Economic performance is the third component of sustainable development. It is the economic success of the operation which supports the environmental and social requirements and commitments. Thus, the development must also ensure long-term profitable growth to the owners and shareholders who provide the necessary funds to operate existing operations and to develop new projects.

From a broader perspective, uranium concentrate, the product from McClean Lake Operation, contributes to national and international sustainable development through its use to generate nuclear power. The advantages of nuclear power are that it is clean, safe and affordable, has predictable costs and security of supply, and facilitates grid stability. Uranium concentrate is also the raw material used for production of a wide range of radioisotopes in nuclear reactors. These radioisotopes are used in research, medicine and industry.

1.4.3 Quality Management at McClean Lake Operation

As noted previously, the Midwest Project will be operated by the McClean Lake Operation and the quality management programs that are currently practiced at the McClean Lake Operation will be applied to the Midwest

Sustainable development also involves consideration of nearby communities and embracing social responsibility and social partnerships

Development must also ensure long-term profitable growth to the owners and shareholders

Uranium contributes to national and international sustainable development through its use to generate nuclear power



Page 1-17

Project. Activities at the McClean Lake Operation are facilitated through a comprehensive Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS). The system applies to all regulated activities performed by employees or contractors, and to other key activities included for business reasons. The benefits of the integrated approach are that the regulatory requirements, business requirements, and those associated with certification of the Environmental Management System to the International Organization for Standardization standard (ISO14001) and Safety Management System to the Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series standard (OHSAS 18001), can be met without duplication, leading to a single system that is consistent and easily understood. The Environmental Management System (EMS), embedded within the integrated system, is currently registered to the International Standard ISO 14001:2004. Similarly, the Safety Management System, embedded within the integrated system, is currently registered to the OHSAS 18001:2007 standard.

1.4.4 Integrated Approach to Environmental Protection

The framework for AREVA’s integrated approach to environmental protection is based on continual improvement, incorporating the concepts of both a precautionary approach and adaptive management. Continual improvement in facility processes and operational practices are identified based on analyses of performance data. Operational performance is continually monitored to confirm acceptability of the operations, identify additional mitigation measures where needed, and to update predictions of environmental effects based on analyses of operational and environmental data. As well, environmental monitoring and follow-up programs are continually reviewed for improvement opportunities. This integrated approach allows a conservative, or precautionary approach to decision making when uncertainties are higher, as may be the case prior to the start of operation.

As time progresses, uncertainties are reduced through demonstration of the physical performance of the facility, its mitigative features, and confirmation or revision of the predictions supporting the EA and licensing approvals. The focus thus shifts from the precautionary approach initially required in the face of uncertainties to adaptive management. Optimization of performance, and of monitoring, and follow-up programs, is achieved through continual improvement based on experience. If necessary, additional mitigation measures can be implemented from amongst the contingency measures identified at the time of original regulatory approvals.

AREVA’s integrated approach to environmental protection is based on continuous improvement, incorporating precautionary approach and adaptive management

As time progresses, the focus shifts from the precautionary approach to adaptive management

Activities at the McClean Lake Operation are facilitated through a comprehensive IQMS and will be applied to the Midwest Project



Page 1-18

1.5 Document Organization

1.5.1 Organization of the EIS

The EIS has been organized to present the results of the technical studies in a manner that facilitates determining whether the Midwest Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The EIS has been organized into the following sections:

Section 1 provides a general introduction to the Midwest Project and the EA process under both the provincial and federal regulatory framework.

Section 2 provides a background on the overall assessment methodology, such as the scope of the Midwest Project, scope of the assessment, spatial and temporal boundaries, and the general approach adopted for carrying out this EA.

Section 3 provides a comprehensive project description, with the objective of identifying and characterizing Project components/activities that may interact with the environment during normal operation or during malfunctions or accidents. This section also includes those components that have the potential to result in post-operational long-term environmental effects. Those components that are in place to mitigate potential effects are considered, and a discussion on actual operational performance is provided, where relevant in carrying out an EA.

Section 4 provides a broad description of the existing environment, including the pre-development conditions and the existing conditions after operation of the facilities to date. The objective of this section is to identify and characterize the environmental components that may interact with the Project components. This section further highlights to what extent past activities have affected the environment.

Section 5 details AREVA’s ongoing public consultation activities, as well as those that were undertaken in support of this EA. It also summarizes the questions and issues that were raised by the public (participants) through the various means that were made available.

Sections 6 presents, in a systematic manner, the evaluation of Project-environment interactions, assessment of potential effects, consideration of mitigation measures, and identification of residual adverse effects. The

The EIS presents the results of the technical studies in a manner that facilitates determining whether this project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects



Page 1-19

residual adverse effects that require further detailed consideration are dealt with in Section 7.

Section 7 documents the detailed assessment of residual adverse effects that are of primary interest. This assessment has confirmed that the residual effects that have previously been identified as key issues requiring detailed assessment (e.g., waste water, waste rock, and tailings management) continue to remain as key issues.

Section 8 provides the assessment of human health considerations, which include health considerations for the McClean Lake Operation workers, as well as for residents at the nearest locations beyond the site. The consideration of socio-economic benefits related to the Midwest Project is also provided in this section.

Section 9 summarizes the overall significance of predicted residual adverse effects as determined by the results of the technical assessment contained largely in sections 7 and 8.

Section 10 considers cumulative effects of the Project with other projects that may overlap in time and/or in space. This includes potential future developments within the McClean Lake surface lease area, as well as potential interactions with other uranium developments in the Athabasca Basin Region.

Section 11 provides a general discussion on potential effects of the environment on the Midwest Project, such as climatic effects (e.g., extended drought, flood).

Section 12 discusses the general integrated approach to environmental protection for the Midwest Project, including the ongoing environmental monitoring and compliance monitoring program, as well as the follow-up program specifically identified for this EA.

Section 13 provides AREVA’s conclusions on this EA, which are based on the results of the technical studies and public consultation activities described in this document.



Page 1-20

1.5.2 Cross-Reference of the PSG&CSD with the EIS

To assist in the review of this document in relation to the requirements of the PSG&CSD, a reference table has been prepared and is provided in Appendix I. This table lists the requirements of the PSG&CSD and specifically indicates where this information can be found in this EIS.

A table cross referencing the PSG&CSD requirements with this EIS is found in Appendix I

Section 1 References


REFERENCES

Cameco and AREVA. 2006. Rabbit Lake Solution Processing Project Environmental Impact Statement, November.

CLMC (Cigar Lake Mine Corporation). 1995. The Cigar Lake Project Environmental Impact Statement, 1995.

COGEMA (COGEMA Resources Inc.). 1995. The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, August.

COGEMA. 2004. McClean Lake Operation, Sue E Project, Environmental Impact Statement, November and 2005 Addendum.

COGEMA. 2005. Midwest Project Description/Proposal, December.

Government of Canada. 1993. Federal Response to Panel Recommendations on Dominique-Janine Extension (Cluff Lake), Midwest Joint Venture and McClean Lake Projects, December.

Government of Canada. 1998. Government of Canada Response to the Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan: Midwest Uranium Mine Project, Cigar Lake Uranium Mining Project; Cumulative Observations, April.

Government of Saskatchewan. 1993. The Government’s Position on Proposed Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan: Midwest Joint Venture, Dominique-Janine Extension, McClean Lake Project, December.

Government of Saskatchewan. 1998. The Government’s Position on Proposed Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan: Midwest Project; Cigar Lake Project, April.

Joint Panel. 1993. Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan: Dominique-Janine Extension, McClean Lake Project, and Midwest Joint Venture. October.

Joint Panel. 1997. Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan: Midwest Uranium Mine Project; Cigar Lake Uranium Mining Project; Cumulative Observations, November.

Minatco (Minatco Ltd.). 1991. The McClean Lake Project Environmental Impact Statement, August.

Section 1 References


Minatco. 1992. The McClean Lake Project Environmental Impact Statement, Complementary McClean Lake and Midwest Projects, September.

MJV (Midwest Joint Venture). 1988. Environmental Impact Statement, Midwest Desposit.

MJV. 1991. Midwest Uranium Project Environmental Impact Statement, August.

United Nations. 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. London: Oxford University Press.

Section 1 List of Tables


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.2-1: Comparison of the 1992, 1995 and Current Proposals for Mining the Midwest Uranium Deposit

Section 1 Tables


Table 1.2-1: Comparison of the 1992, 1995 and Current Proposals for Mining the Midwest Uranium Deposit

PANEL CONCERNS WITH 1992 PROPOSAL DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN THE 1995

PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL

Use of unacceptable mining methods. Use of a jet-boring technique, tested at the Cigar Lake test mine, should be a safer mining method.

Open pit mining method maximizes ore recovery and offers enhanced worker safety. Existing experienced workforce can be utilized.

Mining, in confined underground spaces, of an ore that contains high concentrations of uranium, arsenic and nickel.

Automated mining from locations in the basement rock, underneath the ore body, should reduce exposure of miners to radioactivity and toxic heavy metals.

Open pit mining operational experience illustrates lower occupational exposures relative to underground mining methods.

The existence of over 600 exploration bore holes, most of them uncapped, in the vicinity of the ore body.

Freezing of the ore body would seal the bore holes during the operational phase.

Open pit mining would require Mink Arm to be drained. Mink Arm was previously drained during 1988 test mining. Fisheries Act and the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat provide mechanism to address the Harmful Alteration Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of fish habitat.

The need to transport high grade ore on a public highway.

Ore, in slurry form, would be transported in specially designed and constructed vessels.

Private Road access between Midwest and JEB mill will eliminate need for ore transport on highway 905

The potential for environmental damage through the release of contaminated effluent into the Smith Creek watershed and the need to dewater an area of several square kilometres around the mine site.

Dewatering of Mink Arm and the surrounding area would not be required and the volume of effluent released would be greatly reduced.

Pumping effluent via pipeline to the Sink/Vulture Treated Effluent Management System (S/V TEMS) at the McClean Lake Operation. This will eliminate impacts on Smith Creek from release of treated effluent. No modifications to the S/V TEMS will be required to maintain current operational constraints. Dewatering impacts will be assessed, and mitigated as per DFO policy (see above).

Uncertainties in the disposal of mill tailings containing high concentrations of toxic heavy metals.

Protection from dust would be enhanced by the subaqueous disposal of tailings; however, there are concerns remaining regarding contamination of ground water.

Uncertainties associated with mill tailings disposal in the JEB TMF have been addressed by the Tailings Optimization and Validation Program. The program has validated predicted performance.

The contribution of this proposed mine to the combined effects of all of the mines (existing and proposed) in a relatively small area on the west side of Wollaston Lake.

The new mining methods and technologies proposed are intended to decrease loadings of contaminants to the environment.

Minimizing the number of treated effluent discharge locations reduces the spatial footprint of potential effects associated with treated effluent release. The incremental effects associated with the discharge of treated Midwest mine water in Collins Creek are expected to be not significant. The Cumulative Effects Monitoring Program has been established by the Province to assess cumulative effects at the regional level. None have been found to date.

RECOMMENDED NOT TO PROCEED RECOMMENDED TO PROCEED

Section 1 List of Figures


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2-1: Project Location – Map of Saskatchewan

Figure 1.2-2: Location of the Midwest Project

Figure 1.4-1: AREVA Nuclear Fuel Cycle

SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVISED:APPROVED:REF. DWGS:REVISIONS:

DATE:MIDWEST PROJECT

Project Location -Map of Saskatchewan

CZ 01/07/2010

Q:\EN

V_GI

S\ArcP

rojec

ts\Mi

dwes

t\GIS\

EA - F

igure

1-2-1

Proje

ct Lo

catio

n - M

ap of

Sask

atche

wan.m

xd

FIGURE 1.2-1

Project Location - Map of Saskatchewan

Midwest Site

S/V TEMS

SueSite

JEB Site

Points NorthAirstrip

905

905

905

Cigar Lake Road

Blac k Lake Road


DATE:FIGURE 1.2-2

Location of Midwest Project0 2 4

Kilometers CZ 08/26/07

LegendMcClean Lake Surface Lease

Midwest Surface Lease

Existing Facility

Lake

River

Road

Reference:NAD 83; UTM Zone 13; NTS 1:50,000 Topo

Q:\ENV_GIS\ArcProjects\Midwest\GIS\EA - Figure 1-2-2 Local Study Area.mxd

MIDWEST PROJECT

CZ 12/24/09


DATE:MIDWEST PROJECT

AREVA Nuclear Fuel CycleCZ 01/07/2010

FIGURE 1.4-1

Q:\ENV_GIS\ArcProjects\Midwest\GIS\EA - Figure 1-4-1 AREVA Nuclear Fuel Cycle.mxd

AREVA Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Uranium Concentrate

Conversion

Enrichment

Enriched Uranium Nuclear Fuel

Nuclear Power Reactor

Reprocessing

Waste MOX Fuel

Date post:	26-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Section 1 FINAL - Government of Saskatchewan

Documents