1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. canada

Nunavut Impact Review Board
Final Hearing Report
Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project
AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated
NIRB File No. 09MN003
May 2015
INSIDE COVER PAGE
The Nunavut Impact Review Board’s Primary Objectives under the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement, Article 12, Section 2.2.5:
In carrying out its functions, the primary objectives of NIRB shall be at all times to protect and
promote the existing and future well-being of the residents and communities of the Nunavut
Settlement Area, and to protect the ecosystemic integrity of the Nunavut Settlement Area. NIRB
shall take into account the well-being of residents of Canada outside the Nunavut Settlement Area.
Contact Information:
Nunavut Impact Review Board
PO Box 1360
29 Mitik Street
Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0
Telephone: (867) 983-4600
Facsimile: (867) 983-2594
Cover Photo Credits: NIRB Staff
i
SIGNATURE PAGE
Photo 1: Board Members: (from left) Guy Alikut, Jaypootie Aliqatuqtuq, Phillip Kadlun, Elizabeth Copland,
Marjorie Kaviq Kaluraq, Henry Ohokannoak, Joe Ohokannoak
THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE BERNARD VALCOURT, MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL
AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT BY THE NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD ON THIS 8TH DAY
OF MAY, 2015
Elizabeth Copland, Chairperson
Phillip Kadlun, Board Member
Kaviq Kaluraq, Board Member
Henry Ohokannoak, Board Member
Guy Alikut, Board Member
Joe Ohokannoak, Board Member
Jaypootie Aliqatuqtuq, Board Member
ii
COVER LETTER
May 8, 2015
NIRB File No.: 09MN003
The Honourable Bernard Valcourt
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
10 Wellington, 21st Floor
Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4
Sent via email and courier: [email protected]; [email protected]
Re:
Final Hearing Report for the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s Assessment of
AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated’s “Kiggavik Uranium Mine” Project
Proposal
Dear Bernard Valcourt:
As required under Section 12.5.6 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) please find
enclosed the Final Hearing Report of the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB or Board) with
respect to AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated’s Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project Proposal,
NIRB File No. 09MN003. The enclosed Final Hearing Report contains the NIRB’s assessment
of the potential ecosystemic and socio-economic effects of the Kiggavik Project Proposal and
concludes that the Project should not proceed at this time. The Board does not intend that this
Project not proceed at any time. The Board intends that the Kiggavik Project may be
resubmitted for consideration at such future time when increased certainty regarding the project
start date can be provided. This may enable the Board to make more definite and confident
assessments of potential ecosystemic and socio-economic effects having regard to the enduring
significance of caribou, fish and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and
communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, and the potential for project-specific and
cumulative effects which could adversely affect these. The Board makes recommendations to
you about actions which may assist the NIRB in considering any future proposal in respect of
this Project.
Translated versions of the Final Hearing Report will be prepared in Inuktitut and French, and
will be made publically available as soon as possible. Please contact the undersigned in writing
if you have questions regarding this matter.
iii
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Copland
Chairperson
Nunavut Impact Review Board
cc:
The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, GOC
The Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of Natural Resources, GOC
The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, GOC
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, MP for Nunavut
Cathy Towtongie, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
David Ningeongan, President, Kivalliq Inuit Association
The Honourable Peter Taptuna, Premier, Nunavut
The Honourable Johnny Mike, Minister of Community and Government Services, Nunavut
Diane Martens, AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated
Tammy Van Lambalgen, AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated
Kiggavik Distribution List
iv
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Project Proponent:
AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated
817 – 45th Street West
Saskatoon, SK S7K 3X5
Date Project Description
Received:
November 25, 2008
Positive Conformity
Determination Received from
the Nunavut Planning
Commission:
January 16, 2009
Dates of Hearings:
Day 1: March 3, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 2: March 4, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 3: March 5, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 4: March 6, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 5: March 7, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 6: March 9, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 7: March 10, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 8: March 11, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 9: March 12, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 10: March 13, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Day 11: March 14, 2015, Baker Lake, NU
Board Members Present:
Elizabeth Copland, Chairperson
Guy Alikut, Member
Phillip Kadlun, Member
Marjorie Kaviq Kaluraq, Member
Henry Ohokannoak, Member
Joe Ohokannoak, Member
Jaypootie Aliqatuqtuq, Member
Board Staff:
Executive Director
Director, Technical Services
Technical Advisor
Assistant Technical Advisor
Senior Finance Officer
Secretary/Receptionist
Board Legal Counsel:
K. Lambrecht
Interpreters:
J. Tucktoo-Lacasse
T. Tiktak
J. Ayaruak
R. Barry
T. Arko
H. Rasmussen
A. Hizaka
P. Evalik
L. Atatahak
v
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Court Reporters:
S. Anderson, Dicta Court Reporting
K. McLeod, Dicta Court Reporting
Sound Technician:
R. Dempster, PIDO Productions
Parties:
Proponent:
AREVA Resources Canada Inc.
J. Corman, Vice President (Operations and Projects)
D. Huffman, Vice President (Safety, Health, Environment)
D. Martens, Regulatory Process Manager
B. McCallum, Manager, Nunavut Affairs
N. Drake, Environmental Engineer
A. Rosaasen, Manager, Environmental Sciences
B. Schmid, Supervisor, Environmental Geosciences
J. Beckett ,Consultant (Nunami Stantec)
P. Bennett, Consultant (Bennett Environmental Consulting)
S. Fernandes, Consultant (SENES Consultants)
J. Kirkaldy, Consultant (SENES Consultants)
S. Ross, Consultant (Golder)
M. Setterington, Consultant (Environmental Dynamics Inc.)
T. Hamai, Partner, JCU Exploration
B. Armstrong, Legal Counsel
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.:
C. Towtongie, President
J. Eetoolook, Vice President
J. Arreak, Chief Executive Officer
P. Irngaut, Director, Department of Wildlife and Environment
B. Dean, Assistant Director, Department of Wildlife and Environment
H. Uniuqsaraq, Director, Policy and Planning
K. Morrison, Senior Advisor, Department of Lands and Resources
A. Dunford, Policy Analyst, Environment
S. Omik, Legal Counsel
Kivalliq Inuit Association:
D. Ningeongan, President
R. Ningeocheak, Vice President
S. Hartman, Executive Director
L. Manzo, Director of Lands
K. Poole, Head of Wildlife
J. Tulugak, Lands Department
J. Hart, Lands Department
T. van der Vooren, Air Quality
B. Stewart, Marine Wildlife and Marine Shipping Assessment
A. Sexton, Geology and Mining Development
N. Hutchinson, Water Quality and Hydrology
B. Parlee, Traditional Knowledge
vi
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
S. Lister, Socioeconomics and Community Engagement
L. Oolooyuk, Communications and Community Officer
L. Niego, Environment Coordinator
K. Gilson, Legal Counsel
Government of Nunavut:
S. Pinksen, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Environment
B. MacIsaac, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Economic
Development and Transportation
D. Baikie, Project Manager for Impact Assessment, Department of
Environment
S. Atkinson, Wildlife Consultant, Department of Environment
T. Cousins, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Department of
Health
L. Kamermans, Acting Manager, Environmental Assessment and
Regulation, Department of Economics Development and
Transportation
S. Le Blanc, Territorial Archeologist, Department of Culture and
Heritage
J. Rogers, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Department of
Economic Development and Transportation
M. Wilson, Ecosystems and Environment Assessment Biologist
L. MacKenzie, Regional Director, Kivalliq Region
M. Baikie, Chief Medical Officer of Health
D. Albahary, Legal Counsel
Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission
H. Harpell, Environmental Assessment Specialist
S. Mihok, Environmental Risk Assessment Specialist
M. McKee, Lead Technical Advisor
T. Barr, Radiation and Health Specialist
D. Schryer, Uranium Mines and Mills Specialist
G. Su, Geoscience Technical Specialist
S. Eaton, Project Officer
R. Lane, Radiation and Health Science Specialist
Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development
Canada:
S. Traynor, Regional Director General, Nunavut Region
J. Neary, Manager of Impact Assessment
M. Sewchand, Senior Environmental Assessment Coordinator
F. Ngwa, Environmental Assessment Coordinator
T. Fast, Regional Socio-Economic Analyst
A. Fleisher, Communications Officer
T. Simmons, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
Department of Justice
(Canada):
N. Cavanagh, Legal Counsel
Environment Canada:
D. Fox, Head, Air Quality
vii
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
A. Wilson, Head, Water Quality
B. Summerfield, Environmental Assessment Coordinator
R. Wiacek, Canadian Wildlife Service
Department of Fisheries and
Oceans:
J. Dahl, Regional Manager, Regulatory Reviews
G. Williston, Fisheries Protection Biologist
Natural Resources Canada:
J. Clarke, Director, Environmental Assessment
K. Cavallaro, Senior Environmental Assessment Officer
Transport Canada:
D. Kirkland, Regional Manager of Environmental Services, Prairie and
Northern Region
J. Johar, Manager of Technical Services, Mine Safety and Security
C. Aguirre, Environmental Officer
G. Black Navigation Protection Officer
P. Driver Advisor, Remedial Measures
Registered Intervenors:
Hamlet of Baker Lake
S. Arngna'naaq, Deputy Mayor
T. Anirniq, Councillor
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
R. Aksawnee, Chairperson
B. Quinangnaq, Vice Chairperson
J. Seetenak, Secretary Treasurer
D. Toolooktook, Board Member/Ancestral/IQ
M. Akilak, Board Member/Ancestral/IQ
T. Tunguaq, Representative/Ancestral/IQ
T. Elytook, Board Member
J. (Joan) Scottie, Manager
S. Adjuk, Chairperson, Kivalliq Wildlife Board
L. Muckpah, Regional Coordinator, Kivalliq Wildlife Board
W. Bernauer, Consultant
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né
Land Corporation
J. Tsannie, Vice Chief
B. Hunter, Consultant, PACTeam Canada Inc.
Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation
A. Enzoe, Representative
T. Enzoe, Representative
Beverley and Qamanirjuaq
Caribou Management Board
E. Evans, Chairperson
Nunavummiut
Makitagunarningit
H. Tagoona, Representative
E. Ukpatiku, Representative
H. Ikoe, Representative
viii
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Individual Intervenor
Community Representatives:
Baker Lake
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson
J. (Joseph) Scottie
M. Perkison
D. Ovyuk
E. Elytook
Chesterfield Inlet
L. (Leo) Mimialik
E. Tautu
A. Tautu
L. Mimialik
R. Qiyuk
Rankin Inlet
T. Irwin
A. Kabvitok
J. Taipana
J. Tayoana
Whale Cove
R. Enuapik
E. Voisey
V. Siturat
P. Kabloona
M. Nangmalik
Arviat
P. Alareak
M. Ahmak
D. Aglukark
Repulse Bay (Naujaat)
S. Malliki
M. Tuktudjuk
L. Haqpi
E. Haqpi
D. Mablik
Coral Harbour
C. Angootealuk
D. Matoo
M. Matoo
NOTE: For access to complete records of sign-in and attendance at all Hearing venues please visit the NIRB’s public
registry at http://ftp.nirb.ca.
ix
CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWARD
This report has been prepared by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB or Board) for the review and
consideration of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (the Minister) as
set out in Article 12, Section 12.5.6 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. This report contains the
Board’s assessment of the Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project proposed by AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated, and its determination of whether or not the project should proceed based on this
assessment.
In carrying out its functions, the Board took into account the matters in section 12.5.5 of the Nunavut
Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), the information contained in the Public Registry maintained by the
Board for this Project, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the evidence and
submissions received at the Final Hearing conducted in Baker Lake, Nunavut, in March of 2015.
The Minister’s letter of February 23, 2010, sent this Project to NIRB for review pursuant to section
12.4.7(b) of the NLCA. Pursuant to section 12.5.1 of the NLCA, the Minister’s letter also (i) highlighted
specific issues for the Board to pay particular attention to during the course of its review, and (ii)
encouraged the Board to undertake its review in such a way as to enable meaningful participation of the
public and thorough public consultation. The Board’s review had regard for these specific issues, and
was undertaken in a manner which complied with the Minister’s direction to enable meaningful
participation of the public and thorough public consultation.
As regards public consultation, the Board’s process is routinely documented in the NIRB Public Registry
and this is accessible via the internet. The Board’s routine process also includes community
consultations. For this Review the NIRB held public information meetings in each of the seven
communities of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut -- Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour,
Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat) and Whale Cove – and in three communities of northern
Saskatchewan -- Wollaston Lake, Black Lake, and Fond du Lac. For the Kiggavik Project, specifically, a
participant funding program to support public participation in the NIRB review of the Project was made
available to individuals, Aboriginal organizations, municipal governments of Nunavut, and incorporated
not-for-profit organizations interested in participating in the Review. The participant funding program
was administered by the federal department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), and could
cover eligible expenses, such as travel costs and fees for experts to support participation, but may not
have covered all expenses incurred by a participant. Numerous individuals or organizations took
advantage of this funding to participate in the NIRB Review, including technical reviews, the pre-hearing
conference and/or the Final Hearing. The Final Hearing was held in Baker Lake, Nunavut, the nearest
community to the proposed Project, and the Board sat extended hours so that members of the public
might have the most opportunity to attend and ask questions. The NIRB further supported public
participation by enabling the seven communities of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut to each send up to
five representatives to attend the whole of the Final Hearing, ask questions and make submissions.
Recognizing that the Inuit languages, Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut, do not have terms associated with
uranium or its development, the Board also encouraged the Government of Nunavut, via the Office of
the Language Commissioner for Nunavut and then the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit (Inuit
Language Authority), to develop and establish language standards specific to uranium in order to
increase effective communications between Nunavummiut and the parties to the Board Review.
x
After reviewing the Kiggavik project proposal, and after taking into account all matters that are relevant
to its mandate, the Board has concluded that the Project should not proceed at this time. The Kiggavik
Project as presented has no definite start date or development schedule. The Board found that this
adversely affected the weight and confidence which it could give to assessments of future ecosystemic
and socio-economic effects.
At the same time, the Board heard concerns respecting the enduring significance of caribou, fish and
marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement
Area, and the potential for project specific and cumulative effects which could adversely affect these.
The Board’s view is that the Kiggavik Project may be resubmitted at such future time when increased
certainty regarding the start date for the project can be provided, and so enable the Board to make
more definite and confident assessments having regard to the enduring significance of caribou, fish and
marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement,
and enable the Board to make more definite and confident assessments of eco-systemic and socioeconomic effects.
xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Report is the culmination of the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s (NIRB or Board) review of the
Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project (Kiggavik Project), proposed by AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated
(AREVA).
The Kiggavik Project involves a proposed uranium ore mining and milling operation located in the
Kivalliq region of Nunavut. The Project consists of two separate mine sites, the Kiggavik site and the
Sissons site, together with the Baker Lake Dock facility. The proposed mining sites are located to the
west of Baker Lake, while the Dock facility is proposed to be in Baker Lake. Uranium ore deposits at the
Kiggavik site would be mined using open pit mining methods, while uranium ore deposits at the Sissons
Site would be mined using open pit and underground methods. Ore from the mines would be stockpiled
prior to processing in a mill located at the Kiggavik site. In addition to the mill, the Kiggavik site would
include storage and utility facilities, main accommodations and a nearby registered aerodrome. Mined
out pits at the Kiggavik site would serve as tailings management facilities. Uranium product produced
through the milling process (also known as “yellowcake”) would be sealed in drums and transported via
aircraft to Points North in Saskatchewan, for distribution internationally via transportation networks in
southern Canada. To link the Kiggavik and Sissons sites with the dock facility, AREVA sought approval of
both a winter road and an all-season access road. AREVA indicated that its preferred course of action is
to operate the mine with only the winter access road, but it sought approval of an all-season access road
at this time should this become necessary for operational reasons. AREVA estimates a construction time
of 3-4 years, a mine operational life estimated at 12 years, decommissioning estimated at 5 years, and
post decommissioning monitoring lasting an additional 10 years. The life of the mill could also be
extended should AREVA obtain approval to develop other uranium ore resources in the Kivalliq region.
On November 25, 2008 AREVA submitted its Kiggavik project proposal to the NIRB for consideration. On
January 16, 2009 the NIRB received a positive conformity determination from the Nunavut Planning
Commission for this Project under the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. The NIRB proceeded to screen
the Kiggavik Project in accordance with Part 4 of Article 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
(NLCA), and on March 13, 2009, issued a Screening Decision Report to the Responsible Minister, then
the Honourable Chuck Strahl, recommending a review under Part 5 or 6 of Article 12 of the NLCA. On
March 2, 2010, pursuant to Section 12.4.7 of the NLCA, the Minister referred the Project to the NIRB for
a review pursuant to Part 5 of Article 12 of the NLCA. In addition, pursuant to Section 12.5.1 of the
NLCA, the Minister identified particular issues or concerns for the NIRB to consider during its Review of
the Kiggavik Project. On March 3, 2010 the NIRB distributed the Minister’s decision and commenced its
Review of the Kiggavik Project. The progress of review process from 2010 to 2015 is documented in the
NIRB Public Registry. The Review process concluded in March of 2015 with Final Hearings held in Baker
Lake, Nunavut.
Over the course of the NIRB Review of this Kiggavik Project, the NIRB heard from AREVA, Nunavut
Tunngavik Incorporated, the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Government of Nunavut, Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development Canada, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Environment Canada, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, the Baker Lake
Hunters & Trappers Organization, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, the
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, Nunavummiut
Makitagunarningit, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson, representatives of all of the seven communities in the
xii
Kivalliq region of Nunavut, and many members of the general public including elders, youth, women,
hunters and trappers, and municipal representatives.
The Board is required to consider matters defined in section 12.5.5 of the NLCA. These matters, the
evidence and submissions received, and the views of the Board, are described in this Report under
headings of Ecosystemic Effects, Socio-economic Effects, and Other Matters.
AREVA stated at the outset of the NIRB’s Final Hearing that the world price of uranium made the project
uneconomic at the present time. Further, AREVA could not provide a definite start date for the Project.
AREVA did express confidence that, at some point in the future, the demand for uranium would lead to
an increase in price and so to development of the project. During the Final Hearing, numerous parties
offered their views on the length of time before the predictions in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement might need to be revisited, in whole or in part. When performing its functions, the Board
found that the absence of a definite start date for the project, and the admitted necessity of revisiting
the predictions in the Final Environmental Impact Assessment in future, adversely affected its
consideration of the weight and confidence which it could give to assessments of project specific and
cumulative effects.
The Board was also influenced by Inuit Qaujimaningit respecting caribou, fish and marine wildlife, the
environment in which these live, and the importance of preserving the integrity of these in the event of
uranium mining development in the Kivalliq region. No party disputed the enduring significance of
caribou, fish and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and communities of the
Nunavut Settlement Area. This was symbolized by the closing submissions of the Baker Lake Hunters
and Trappers Organization at the Final Hearings:
The Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization is not necessarily against Kiggavik. We just
want to make sure that we have the best possible protection for our caribou and that mining is
done responsibly … we do not want this proposal approved but still hanging over our heads for
decades to come, not knowing what the future of our community will be. We would be sitting
and waiting for decades totally powerless to control our own future. This would not be
right….The company can return when they have a start date, when they are serious about
getting this project off the ground. Then we can talk about it.
These submissions corresponded to the Final Written Submission of the Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization, which stated as follows:
To allow AREVA to get approval today but build the mine at some undetermined time in the
future may make AREVA’s Environmental Impact Statement outdated by the time the mine is
built. If AREVA’s mine is approved based on studies done today, but not built for 10 or 20 years,
the information in the studies will be badly outdated. This could make a mockery of the entire
assessment process that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement created.
With respect to the safety of uranium mining to human health, in particular, AREVA was confident that
the project could be undertaken safely. The CNSC was confident that it could regulate the project within
the confines of its jurisdiction, and that this mining and milling activity could be undertaken safely. A
contrary view, expressed by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit [Makita], represented that uranium
mining could not be undertaken safely. The Board did not find Makita’s evidence in this respect to be
compelling, and rejects it.
xiii
This does not mean, however, that the Board thought that other concerns respecting the potential
effects of uranium mining on human health were not considered. For example, many spoke of concerns
respecting the potential contamination of the food chain by radioactive dust from the mining
operations. AREVA stated that dust would have a limited dispersion from the mine sites, and
established the geographical extent of its monitoring program around this assumption. That assumption
was not consistent with Inuit Qaujimaningit presented to the NIRB which, expressed in the voices of
Nunavummiut, predicted that dust would have a broader distribution than predicted because of the
strength and duration of winds in this central arctic region.
While the Board has decided that the Project should not proceed at this time, this does not mean that
this Project should not proceed at any time. The Board intends that the Kiggavik Project may be
resubmitted for consideration at such future time when increased certainty regarding the start date for
the project can be provided, and so enable the Board to make more definite and confident assessments
having regard to the enduring significance of caribou, fish and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut,
especially the beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Should AREVA choose to resubmit the Project in the future, the Board offers a number of observations
which may assist its future consideration of whether the Project would enhance and protect the existing
and future well-being of the residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, taking into
account the interests of other Canadians; whether the project would unduly prejudice the ecosystemic
integrity of the Nunavut Settlement Area; whether the proposal reflects the priorities and values of the
residents of the Nunavut Settlement Area; and whether steps which the proponent proposes to take to
avoid and mitigate adverse impacts were adequate. These are expressed here, and in Part 7 of the
Report as well:

development of Inuit languages applicable to uranium and uranium mining by the Inuit
Language Authority;

development of further baseline information respecting caribou population trends, as well as
baseline information pertinent to the prediction of project activities upon marine wildlife
populations of significance to the residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area;

advancement of educational programs which would enable Inuit to be qualified for, and so to
take advantage of, employment opportunities associated with uranium mining beyond limited
entry level positions; and

monitoring programs which can fully demonstrate to the residents and communities of the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that their reliance on caribou, fish and marine wildlife as a
source of food remains untainted by industrial development of uranium in the region.
xiv
ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᓇᐃᓈᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ
ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕈᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ
(ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ) ᕿᒥᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᓂᒃ (ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ), ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ
ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑯᐊᐳᕇᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ (ᐊᕚᕆᒃᑯᑦ).
ᑭᒡᒐᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓂᖅ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓃᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕈᒪᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕕᖃᕈᒪᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᒃ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᐅᑦ
ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓐᓂ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ.
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ
ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑑᒃ
ᒪᕐᕈᖕᓂᒃ
ᑲᑎᖓᖏᑦᑑᖕᓂᒃ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᑑᖕᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᓯᓴᓐᔅ ᐃᓂᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᒪᓂᑐᐊᕐᒥ
ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ.
ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᓂᖏᑦ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᐃᑦ
ᐱᖓᖕᓇᖅᐸᓯᐊᓃᓐᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ
ᕿᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᑉ, ᑕᐃᓐᓇᓗ ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᒃᓴᖅ/ᑭᓴᖅᓯᒪᕝᕕᒃᓴᖅ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᓂᓐᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖃᕐᕕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐃᓂᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ
ᒪᑐᐃᖔᖅᑐᒥᒃ
ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᔪᕆᓂᔭᒻᒥᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᒦᑦᑐᓂᑦ
ᑕᐃᕙᓂ ᓯᓴᓐᔅᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ
ᐃᓗᐊᓃᓐᓂᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐊᒨᖃᐃᕕᖃᓗᑎᒃ.
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᒃ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑐᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓴᓂᕐᕙᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ
ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ
ᖁᓕᕇᓕᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ
ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ
ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕝᕕᖕᒧᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒦᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ. ᐊᒻᒪᑕᐅᖅ
ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᕋᔭᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᑐᖁᖅᓯᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓇᕝᕕᒃᓴᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ
ᐃᒡᓗᖁᑎᓂᒃ, ᑐᔪᕐᒥᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᒥᑦᑕᕐᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ.
ᐊᒨᖃᐃᕕᐅᕌᓂᒃᓯᒪᔪᑦ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ
ᓄᓇᐅᑉ
ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ
ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ
ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᐊᒥᒃᑯᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᕕᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᖅᑕᐅᕌᓂᒃᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ
ᐊᒃᑕᑯᓂᒃ. ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᓇᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ
ᐸᓚᐅᒐᒃᓴᔭᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ (ᖃᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖁᖅᓱᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐸᓚᐅᒐᐅᔭᐃᑦ
yellowcake-ᒥᒃ), ᐴᖃᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑕᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑕᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᑎᖕᒥᓲᑯᑦ
ᐅᐊᖕᓇᖅᐸᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᓴᔅᑳᑦᓱᐊᓐ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᑲᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ
ᐊᐅᓪᓛᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑎᑭᓯᒪᕝᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ
ᑭᒡᒐᕕᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓴᓐᔅᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ, ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ
ᓴᓇᔭᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓕᒫᖅ
ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑎᑭᑕᕝᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᖓ ᐊᖅᑯᓯᐅᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕆᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ
ᐱᑕᖃᖔᖁᔨᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᓯᐅᑏᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ
ᑭᓯᐊᓂ,
ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ
ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓕᒫᖅ
ᐊᖅᑯᓯᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ,
ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᓕᕋᔭᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ
ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖏᑦ
ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ.
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ
ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ
ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓇᔭᕆᐊᖏᑦ
ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ−ᓯᑕᒪᓄᑦ
3-5-ᓂᒃ
ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓄᑦ,
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᕆᓇᔭᖅᑕᖓᓪᓗ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ 12−ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓄᑦ,
ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓂᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᒃ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᒃ 5−ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ
ᒪᑐᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᖁᓕᓂᒃ 10-ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᓂᒃ.
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ
ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕕᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ
ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᑦ
ᐅᖓᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᓚᐅᕐᕆᕗᖅ
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ
ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᕈᑎᒃ
ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᓂᒃᓯᒪᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥ.
xv
ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 25, 2008−ᖑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐃᑦᑎᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᑎᖃᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ
ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᔭᓄᐊᕆ
16, 2009−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ
ᐸᓇᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ
ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ,
ᐋᕿᐅᒪᔭᐅᕌᓂᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ
ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ
ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ 4−ᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 12 ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ
ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓱᐃᓛᒃ ᒫᔾᔨ 13, 2009−ᖑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑐᓂᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ
ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᓕᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᒧᑦ, ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᑕᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ
ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑦᓴᒃ ᓯᑐᕌᓪ, ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖁᔨᓂᖅ, ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ 5
ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ 6 ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ 12−ᖓᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ.
ᒫᔾᔨ 2, 2010−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓖᑦ 12.4.7−ᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ
ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ (ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂ) ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᓂᕐᕈᑎᖃᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᕆᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᓕᖅᓱᒋᑦ, ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ 5−ᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑖᓂ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓴᐅᑎᓕᖕᓂᒃ 12-ᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ
ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒻᒪᑕᐅᖅ ᓱᓕ, ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ 12.5.1−ᖏᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ
ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂ,
ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᖅ
ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᖅ
ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑎᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ
ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᑦ.
ᒫᔾᔨ 3, 2010−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᐅᖃᐃᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐊᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ,
ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᓕᖅᓱᑎᒡᓗ
ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᓂᖏᑦ.
ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ 2010−ᒥᒃ 2015-ᒧᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᓱᑎᒃ
ᐃᓄᓕᒫᓄᑦ
ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᓂᒃ
ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᕕᖓᓂᒃ
ᑎᑎᖃᖃᕐᕕᖕᒥ.
ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᑎᑕᐅᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒫᔾᔨ 2015−ᒥᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ
ᐃᓄᓕᒫᓂᒃ ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ.
ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕈᓇᒃᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᐊᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ
ᑐᓴᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ: ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ
ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ
ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ
ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᐃᖃᓗᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ,
ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ,
ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᑐᖃᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ,
ᐊᐅᓛᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ/ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥ ᒪᖃᐃᑏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ
ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, ᖃᒪᓂᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓂᒃ, ᐊᑖBᐋᔅᑲᒥᐅᑦ Dᐊᓂᓱᓕᓐᑯᑦ
ᐊᓪᓚᐃᑦ ᓂᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑯᐊᐳᕆᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓗᑦᓱᓪᑮᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᑐᑦ
ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑭᑕᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐸᐅᓚ ᑭᒡᔪᒐᓕᒃ ᕼᐃᐅᓴᓐᒥᒃ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ 7−ᖑᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᒃ, ᐊᒥᓱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ
ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ,
ᐃᓚᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ,
ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ,
ᐊᕐᓇᓂᒃ,
ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑎᓂᒃ/ᒪᖃᐃᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᓂᒃ.
ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒥᒃ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᖕᓂᒃ
12.5.5−ᒥᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓂᖏᑦ, ᓴᕿᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᖃᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ
ᑕᐃᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒫᒃ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ: ᓄᓇᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑦ, ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ, ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ,
xvi
ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓄᑦ−ᐃᓅᓯᒃᓴᖃᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ/ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓪᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᐊᒃᓴᐅᖕᒥᔪᓂ.
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᑲᐅᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓕᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᖃᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ,
ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ
ᐊᑭᑐᑎᒋᓂᖏᑦ
ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒧᑦ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓄᑦ
ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᔪᓐᓃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ
ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᒃ.
ᐊᒻᒪᑕᐅᖅ,
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ
ᐅᖃᓪᓚᕆᒍᓐᓇᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ
ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᓇᔭᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ, ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ, ᐱᔪᒪᔭᐅᖃᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᓖᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐊᑭᑦᑐᕆᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑭᒃᓴᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓇᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓄᑦ.
ᑕᐃᒪᓕ
ᑕᐃᑲᓂ
ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂ,
ᐊᒥᓱᒐᓴᐃᑦ
ᐃᓚᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ
ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ
ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐸᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ
ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᕐᒪᖔᑕ,
ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ
ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᖏᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒫᔨᑦ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ
ᐱᑕᖃᓚᐅᖐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᑦ
ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᕆᓇᔭᖅᑕᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᐊᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᓐᓂᒃ
ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓂᒃ
ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖏᑦ,
ᐱᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᓚᐅᒪᑕ
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᑐᖓᕕᐅᔪᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᓱᓕᔪᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ
ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᓂᕋᐃᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᔪᒪᔭᖏᑦ.
ᑲᑎᒫᔨᑦᑕᐅᖅ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖏᑦ
ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ
ᐃᓄᐃᑦ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓄᑦ,
ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ,
ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ,
ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓂᒡᓗ
ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ,
ᐊᕙᓗᒋᕙᒃᑕᖏᓪᓗ
ᓇᔪᐸᒃᑕᖏᓪᓗ,
ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ
ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ
ᐸᐸᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ
ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᒥᒃ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ
ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ. ᑭᓇᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᕙᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐸᒡᕕᒃᓴᒃᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓗ, ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᓪᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ
ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ
ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖕᓂᒃ
ᒪᑐᔭᐅᓂᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ
ᐅᖃᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ,
ᐅᖃᕐᒪᑕ
ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᒃ
ᒪᖃᐃᑏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᕙᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ:
ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᒪᖅᑲᐃᑏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᖏᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᓪᓗᐊᕕᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ
ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥᒃ.
ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ
ᐱᐅᓚᑦᑎᐊᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᑐᒃᑐᖁᑎᕗᑦ,
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅᐸᓪᓗ
ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᔪᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ...ᑕᒪᓐᓇ
ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᖁᖏᑕᕗᑦ
ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᖅ
ᑭᓯᐊᓂ
ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑎᒋᓐᓇᕈᒪᖏᓇᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᒐᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒡᒋᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᓕᕐᓗᑕ
ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓐᓂ. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᖏᓇᑦᑕ ᐅᑕᕿᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ
ᖁᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᕋᒍᐃᑦ ᐅᖓᑕᓅᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᖕᓇᐃᕐᓗᑕ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᓂᕆᐊᖅᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂ.
ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓇᔭᕐᓂᖅ
ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᖏᒻᒪᑦ...ᑲᒻᐸᓂᖏᓪᓕ
ᑖᑉᑯᐊᑦ
ᐅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕈᒫᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ
ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓕᕈᑎᒃ, ᐱᓪᓗᐊᕕᐅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᑦᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓂᖅ.
ᑕᐃᑯᖓ ᑎᑭᒻᒥᒍᑉᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒫᓕᖅᐸᕗᑦ.
xvii
ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᑎᒍᑦ
ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᒪᓂ’ᑐᐊᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᒪᖅᑲᐃᑏᑦ ᒥᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓄᑦ,
ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᒃᓯᓴᖏᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ:
ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᕈᒫᕐᓗᑎᒃ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ
ᖃᖓ
ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ,
ᑭᖑᕙᓯᓗᐊᕈᑕᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ
ᓴᓇᓯᒪᓕᐊᓂᒃᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ
ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ
ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᔾᔪᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐱᑐᖃᐅᓕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐅᕆᐊᓕᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ.
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖓᑦ
ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᒌᕐᓂᕈᓂ
ᑐᖓᕕᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ
ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕᐅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ
ᖁᓕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ 10-ᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ 20-ᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒡᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓪᕋᒎᔪᒫᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊᑦ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᑐᖃᐅᓗᐊᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒥᑕᐅᑎᒃᓴᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᐳᖅ
ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓗᒃᑖᖅ
ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐱᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ
ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ
ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ,
ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ.
ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕈᑕᐅᑕᐃᓪᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ,
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕋᐃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ
ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ
ᑲᒥᓯᓇᖏᑦ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᕝᕕᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ,
ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᖃᓕᑎᕆᕝᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᓱᑎᒃ
ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᖃᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ
ᒪᑭᑕᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᒪᑭᑕᑯᓐᓂᒃ), ᐅᖃᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓖᑦ ᔪᕆᓂᔭᒻᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖏᓂᒃ
ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ.
ᒪᑭᑕᒃᑯᑦ
ᓴᕿᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ
ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓄᑦ ᓱᓕᔪᕐᕆᔭᐅᓗᐊᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ
ᖁᔭᓈᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ.
ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ, ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᑲᐅᑎᒋᖏᓐᓂᕗᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦᑕᐅᖅ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ
ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᓐᓂᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ.
ᓲᕐᓗ
ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ,
ᐊᒥᓱᑦ
ᐃᓄᐃᑦ
ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ
ᐃᓱᒪᓘᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᓂᖀᑦ
ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ
ᐱᕈᕐᓗᖏᓐᓂᖔᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐆᑕᕐᓇᑐᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥᖔᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐳᔪᕐᓗᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓴᕿᐅᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ
ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᓄᓇᖑᐊᖅᑎᒍᑦ
ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ
ᖃᓄᑎᒋ
ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᑐᐃᕕᐅᑎᑦᑎᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ
ᑕᒪᑯᐊ
ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᑐᖓᕕᖃᖅᓱᑎᒃ.
ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊᑦ
ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᓐᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᒪᓕᒐᔭᖏᒻᒥᔪᑦ
ᐃᓄᐃᑦ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᓴᕿᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓂᐱᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂᒃ,
ᓇᓚᐅᑖᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᕈᑐᓂᖅᓴᒻᒪᕆᖕᒧᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᐊᓂᒃ, ᐳᔪᕐᓗᐃᓪᓗ
ᓴᓂᕐᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᖏᔫᕙᖕᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᓄᕆᕙᖕᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ
ᕿᑎᖅᐸᓯᖕᒥᐅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖏᑦ.
xviii
ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ,
ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᑲᐅᑎᒋᖏᓐᓂᕗᖅ ᐱᓕᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ.
ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐱᓂᐊᕐᓂᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᒡᒐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᖃᐃᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ
ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ
ᓇᓗᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕈᑎᒃ
ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᒍᑎᒃ, ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒫᕐᒪᑕ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᓇᓗᓇᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ
ᖃᐅᔨᓴᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒫᕐᒪᑕ
ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᑕᐃᒪᖓᑦ
ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ, ᑕᕆᐅᒥᐅᑕᓂᒡᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂ,
ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ.
ᐊᕇᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᕋᔭᕈᑎᒃ ᖃᐃᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒫᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ
ᐊᒥᓱᒐᓴᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖁᔨᓕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ
ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ
ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᓗ
ᖃᓄᐃᖏᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ
ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ
ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓪᓗ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ
ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔫᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ,
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒡᓗ
ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒡᓗᑕᐅᖅ
ᐊᓯᖏᑦ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ;
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ
ᐱᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ
ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕈᑕᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ, ᐆᒪᔪᕐᓄᑦ, ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᐅᔫᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ; ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ
ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ
ᓴᓇᔪᒪᔫᑉ
ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᑦ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᐱᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᕐᓗᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᓈᒻᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ.
ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ
ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ
ᑕᒡᕙᓂ,
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ
7−ᖓᓂ
ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᓂᐊᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᖕᒥᖕᒪᑕ:

ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ
ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᓄᖓ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ
ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᓄ;

ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᒌᕈᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ
ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᓕ
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ
ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ
ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᓄᑦ
ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᔪᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ
ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ;

ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᑦ
ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ
ᐊᑐᒐᒃᓴᐃᑦ
ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ
ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ,
ᐱᖃᑕᐅᕝᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ,
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓄᑦ
ᓴᕿᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ
ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ
ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ
ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ,
ᐅᖓᑕᓃᑐᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ
ᐱᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ
ᐱᒋᐊᓕᓴᕈᑎᒃᓴᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᒃᓴᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ

ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᓕᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓴᕿᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ
ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᑐᖓᕕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᒃ ᐃᓅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᓄᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᒃ,
ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ,
ᐊᒻᒪᓗ
ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓂᒃ
ᐆᒪᓂᒃ
ᓂᕿᒃᓴᖃᕆᔭᐅᖏᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ
ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᖏᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᕝᕕᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᖑᔪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᔪᓂᒃ
ᔪᕇᓂᔭᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ.
xix
SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF
Ce rapport met le point final à l’examen effectué par la Commission du Nunavut chargée de l’examen
des répercussions (la CNER ou la Commission), du projet de mine d’uranium Kiggavik (Projet Kiggavik),
proposé par AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated ( AREVA).
Le projet Kiggavik implique l’exploitation minière et le traitement de minerai d’uranium dans la région
de Kivalliq du Nunavut. Deux mines distinctes seront aménagées, l’une sur le site Kiggavik et l’autre sur
le site Sissons et une installation de transbordement sera construite à Baker Lake. Les gisements de
minerai d’uranium du site Kiggavik seront traités à ciel ouvert et ceux du site Sissons le seront à ciel
ouvert et par extraction souterraine. Le minerai extrait de ces mines sera stocké avant d’être traité dans
une usine installée sur le site Kiggavik. Outre l’usine, le site Kiggavik regroupera des entrepôts et des
installations de services publics, l’hébergement principal et un aérodrome enregistré, tout proche.
Quelques puits de mine serviront à gérer les résidus. L’uranium produit dans l’usine de traitement
(également appelé le « gâteau jaune ») sera emballé dans des barils et expédié par avion jusqu’à Points
North Landing en Saskatchewan pour être ensuite internationalement acheminé via les réseaux de
transport du sud du Canada. Pour relier les sites de Kiggavik et de Sissons à l’installation de
transbordement, la compagnie AREVA a indiqué qu’elle préfèrerait exploiter la mine en n’utilisant que la
route d’accès hivernal mais a toutefois sollicité la permission de construire une route toutes saisons
pour pallier à toute nécessité opérationnelle, le cas échéant. Selon AREVA, la construction de la mine
prendra 3 à 4 ans, sa durée d’exploitation sera de 12 ans, son déclassement de 5 ans et la surveillance
post-déclassement devrait encore durer 10 ans de plus. L’usine de traitement pourrait rester en place
au cas où AREVA serait autorisée à exploiter d’autres gisements de minerai d’uranium dans la région de
Kivalliq.
Le 25 novembre 2008, AREVA a soumis sa proposition de projet Kiggavik à la CNER aux fins d’étude. Le
16 janvier 2009, la CNER recevait de la Commission d’aménagement du Nunavut, une détermination de
conformité positive en vertu du Plan d’aménagement de la région de Keewatin. La Commission a alors
entrepris un examen préalable du projet Kiggavik en vertu de la partie 4 de l’article 12 de l’ARTN et, le
13 mars 2009 elle a transmis ses conclusions au ministre de l’époque, l’honorable Chuck Strahl,
recommandant que le projet soit soumis à un examen tel que prévu aux parties 5 ou 6 de l’article 12 de
l’ARTN. Le 2 mars 2010, conformément aux dispositions du paragraphe 12.4.7 de l’Accord sur les
revendications territoriales du Nunavut, le ministre a renvoyé le projet à la CNER aux fins d’examen, tel
que prévu aux parties 5 ou 6 de l’article 12. De plus, conformément au paragraphe 12.5.1 de l’ARTN, le
ministre a soulevé certaines questions ou préoccupations à prendre en considération lors de l’examen.
Le 3 mars 2010, la CNER a distribué la décision du ministre et a commencé l’examen du projet Kiggavik.
La progression de cet examen, entre 2010 et 2015, est consignée dans le Registre public de la CNER.
L’examen s’est terminé en mars 2015 par une audience finale qui a eu lieu Baker Lake, Nunavut.
Au cours de l’examen, la CNER a entendu les témoignages d’AREVA, de la Fédération de Tunngavik de
Nunavut, de la Kivalliq Inuit Association, du gouvernement du Nunavut, du ministère des Affaires
autochtones et du Développement du Nord, de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire,
d’Environnement Canada, de Pêches et Océans Canada, de Santé Canada, de Ressources naturelles
Canada, de Transports Canada, de la Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, du Conseil
d’administration de la Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou, de l’Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Corporation,
de la Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, de Nunanummiut Makitagunarningit, de Paula Kigjugalik Hughson, de
xx
représentants des sept communautés de la région Kivalliq du Nunavut, de nombreux citoyens, incluant
des aînés, des jeunes, des femmes, des chasseurs et des trappeurs et des représentants municipaux.
La Commission est tenue d’examiner toutes les questions définies au paragraphe 12.5.5 de l’ARTN. Ces
questions, les preuves et les soumissions reçues ainsi que les points de vue de la CNER, sont décrits dans
ce rapport sous les titres Effets écosystémiques, Effets socioéconomiques et Autres questions.
D’entrée de jeu, lors de l’audience finale, AREVA a déclaré qu’à cause du prix mondial de l’uranium, le
projet actuel perdait de sa rentabilité. De plus, la compagnie ne pouvait indiquer de date définitive de
début des travaux. Elle était toutefois certaine qu’à un moment donné ou à un autre dans l’avenir, les
demandes d’uranium engendreraient une hausse des prix et, par conséquent, déclencheraient le
développement du projet. Lors de l’audience finale, les nombreuses parties intervenantes ont donné
leur point de vue sur la période requise avant que les prévisions de l’Énoncé définitif des incidences
environnementales (EIE définitif) aient besoin d’être réexaminées , complètement ou en partie. Au
cours de l’exécution de ses fonctions, la Commission a estimé que l’incapacité de fixer une date
définitive de démarrage du projet et la nécessité reconnue de réexaminer les prévisions de l’Énoncé
définitif des incidences environnementales, pourraient négativement influer sur le poids et la confiance
qu’elle pourrait accorder aux évaluations des effets spécifiques et cumulatifs du projet.
La Commission a également été guidée par les principes Quajimaningit inuit respectant les caribous,
poissons et mammifères marins ainsi que l’environnement dans lequel ils évoluent et l’importance de
préserver leur intégrité en cas de développement d’une mine d’uranium dans la région de Kivalliq.
Aucune des parties intervenantes n’a contesté l’importance durable des effectifs de caribous, poissons
et de la faune marine pour les Nunavummiut, notamment les résidents et les collectivités de la région
du Nunavut. Et cela a été incarné par la Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organisation qui, dans sa
dernière soumission a déclaré lors de l’audience finale:
La Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization ne s’oppose pas nécessairement au projet
Kiggavik. Nous voulons tout juste nous assurer que nos effectifs de caribous seront bien protégés
et que l’exploitation minière sera effectuée de manière responsable….Nous ne voulons pas que
cette proposition soit approuvée et que, pendant les futures décennies, elle continue à planer
au-dessus de nos têtes , sans savoir ce que l’avenir réserve à notre collectivité. Nous serions là,
à attendre, totalement impuissants et sans aucun contrôle sur notre propre avenir. Ce n’est pas
correct….La compagnie pourra revenir quand elle aura fixé la date et quand elle envisagera
sérieusement de faire démarrer le projet. Et alors là, nous pourrons en discuter.
D’autres soumissions s’apparentaient à la soumission finale écrite de la Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization; leurs auteurs ont souligné :
Accorder aujourd’hui l’autorisation à AREVA mais lui permettre de construire la mine à une
date indéterminée peut rendre l’Énoncé des incidences environnementales désuet au moment
de la construction. Si la mine d’ARENA est approuvée en fonction des études actuelles, il va de
soi que dans dix ou 20 ans, les données de ces études seront lamentablement périmées. Tout le
processus de consultation créé au titre de l’Accord sur les revendications territoriales du
Nunavut, sera tourné en dérision.
En ce qui a trait à la sécurité de l’extraction d’uranium, principalement en matière de santé humaine,
AREVA était sûre que le projet pourrait être réalisé sans danger. Certaine de pouvoir réguler le projet
dans les limites de son champ de compétence, la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) a
xxi
soutenu que l’exploitation minière et le broyage pourraient s’effectuer sans risque. Mais la
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Marika) a opposé un avis contraire, estimant que l’exploitation
d’uranium ne pourrait se faire en toute sécurité. La Commission n’a toutefois pas trouvé ses arguments
suffisamment probants et les a rejetés.
La Commission est loin d’avoir pensé que d’autres effets de l’exploitation d’uranium sur la santé
humaine avaient été occultés. Ainsi, pour de nombreux intervenants, l’éventuelle contamination de la
chaîne alimentaire par la poussière d’uranium était fort préoccupante. Mais AREVA a déclaré que la
dissémination de cette poussière aurait une envergure limitée autour des sites miniers et, à partir de
cette hypothèse, a défini l’ampleur de son programme de surveillance. Mais cette hypothèse ne se
conforme pas aux principes Qaujimaningit inuit autour desquels s’articulaient les affirmations des
Nunavummiut. Ces derniers ont en effet prédit qu’à cause de la force et de la durée des vents dans
cette région centrale de l’Arctique, la dissémination de la poussière serait beaucoup plus vaste que celle
prévue.
Même si la Commission a décidé que ce projet ne pouvait actuellement être approuvé, cela ne signifie
pas qu’il ne pourra être réalisé dans l’avenir. La Commission soutient en effet que le projet Kiggavik
pourra être à nouveau soumis lorsque la date de début des travaux sera établie avec beaucoup plus de
certitude. La Commission pourra alors évaluer de manière plus définitive et plus notable les
répercussions de ce projet sur l’importance durable des effectifs de caribous, poissons et mammifères
marins pour les Nunavummiut, et plus particulièrement pour les bénéficiaires de l’Accord sur les
revendications territoriales du Nunavut.
Au cas où la compagnie AREVA déciderait à de soumettre à nouveau son projet, la Commission a dégagé
certains points qui pourraient guider tout futur examen visant à déterminer sa capacité d’améliorer et
de protéger l’actuel et futur bien-être des résidents et des collectivités de la région du Nunavut et de
tenir compte des intérêts des autres Canadiens : est-ce que le projet causerait un préjudice excessif à
l’intégrité écosystémique de la région du Nunavut? Est-ce que la proposition traduirait les priorités et
les valeurs des résidents du Nunavut? Est-ce que les mesures proposées par le promoteur pour éviter
ou atténuer les répercussions négatives seraient appropriées? Ces recommandations sont ci-après
mentionnées et le sont également au chapitre 7 du rapport :

développement de langues inuites applicables à l’uranium et à son exploitation minière par
l’Inuit Language Authority;

production de renseignements de base supplémentaires concernant les tendances des effectifs
de caribous ainsi que de renseignements de base relatives aux prévisions sur espèces de la
faune marine importantes pour les résidents et les collectivités de la région du Nunavut;

mise sur pied de programmes éducatifs pouvait aider les Inuit à se qualifier pour les emplois liés
à l’exploitation minière de l’uranium, et à profiter de ces possibilités au-delà des postes de
premier échelon.

mise en vigueur de programmes de surveillance pouvant fondamentalement prouver aux
résidents et aux collectivités visées par l’Accord sur les revendications territoriales du Nunavut
que leur dépendance alimentaire envers les caribous, les poissons et la faune marine ne sera
nullement affectée par le développement industriel de l’exploitation d’uranium dans la région.
xxii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INSIDE COVER PAGE ................................................................................................................................................ I
SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................................................. II
COVER LETTER ...................................................................................................................................................... III
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... V
CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWARD ................................................................................................................................. X
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... XII
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................................... XXIII
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.
PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................................................ 19
2.1
2.2
3.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................19
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................................................23
INVOLVEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES ..................................................................................................... 29
3.1
3.2
4.
PROJECT OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................................................................................................................3
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................................................9
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD ...............................................................................................................................9
THE MANDATE OF THE BOARD.............................................................................................................................9
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................10
SCOPE OF THE NIRB’S ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GUIDELINES ........................................12
KEY ISSUES.....................................................................................................................................................16
ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES ..........................................................................................................................29
THE PARTICIPANTS ..........................................................................................................................................30
ECOSYSTEMIC EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................ 44
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................46
CLIMATE (INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE) AND METEOROLOGY.................................................................................56
NOISE AND VIBRATION .....................................................................................................................................59
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING LANDFORMS, SURFICIAL GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY AND SOILS) .............66
PERMAFROST AND GROUND STABILITY ................................................................................................................70
GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................73
HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .....................................................................................................................76
GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................81
SEDIMENT QUALITY .........................................................................................................................................94
FRESHWATER AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................96
VEGETATION ................................................................................................................................................107
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ..................................................................................................111
BIRDS AND BIRD HABITAT ...............................................................................................................................128
xxiii
4.14
4.15
5.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................... 151
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
6.
MARINE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................134
MARINE WILDLIFE.........................................................................................................................................140
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES.................................................................................................153
EMPLOYMENT ..............................................................................................................................................157
EDUCATION AND TRAINING .............................................................................................................................165
CONTRACTING AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES....................................................................................................170
BENEFITS, ROYALTIES, AND TAXATION ...............................................................................................................174
POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS .........................................................................................................................180
TRADITIONAL ACTIVITY AND KNOWLEDGE ..........................................................................................................184
NON-TRADITIONAL LAND USE .........................................................................................................................197
CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................201
INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY WELLNESS ..........................................................................................................205
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ..........................................................................................211
GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP .......................................................................................................................216
HEALTH AND SAFETY (INCLUDING WORKER AND PUBLIC SAFETY) .............................................................................221
OTHER MATTERS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .................................................................................................. 229
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
HUMAN HEALTH AND RISK ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................................229
ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS .....................................................................................................................241
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................253
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................................257
REGULATORY CAPACITY ..................................................................................................................................267
OPERATIONAL VARIABILITY..............................................................................................................................274
PERFORMANCE BONDING ...............................................................................................................................278
TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS..............................................................................................................................278
7.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE MINISTER ..................................................................................................... 288
8.
SUMMARY OF BOARD CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 289
APPENDIX A: LIST OF EXHIBITS FROM THE KIGGAVIK PROJECT FINAL HEARING ..................................................... 1
APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... 1
xxiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP, FEIS FIGURE 1.0-1 ...........................................................................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................4
TABLE 2: KEY ISSUES AS RAISED BY COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES ...........................................................................................37
xxv
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Project Overview
The Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003) consists of the proposed construction, operation, closure,
and reclamation of a uranium ore mining and milling operation approximately 80 kilometres (km) west
of Baker Lake, in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut. The proponent for the Kiggavik Project is AREVA
Resources Canada Incorporated (the Proponent or AREVA).
The Kiggavik Project includes three main development areas: the Kiggavik site, the Sissons site, and the
Baker Lake dock facility (collectively referred to as the Kiggavik Project, or the Project). The Kiggavik and
Sissons sites are located approximately 17 km apart, and would be connected by a 19.6 km mine haul
road. The Kiggavik site encompasses three uranium ore deposits: East Zone, Centre Zone, and Main
Zone, which would be accessed using open pit mining techniques. A uranium mill and related facilities,
main accommodations for Project personnel, and a landing strip would be located at the Kiggavik site.
Two uranium ore deposits, Andrew Lake and End Grid, would be accessed from the Sissons site using a
combination of open pit and underground mining methods.
Total mineral resources for the Project are estimated at approximately 51,000 tonnes of uranium (133
million pounds U3O8) at an average grade of 0.46% uranium. Ore extracted from the Kiggavik and
Sissons mine sites would be processed through a mill at the Kiggavik site using hydrometallurgical
processes. Mined out pits at the Kiggavik site would sequentially be used as tailings management
facilities (TMF) with the East Zone pit potentially serving as the initial TMF, followed by the Centre Zone
and Main Zone pits. The uranium product refined through the milling process (also known as
yellowcake) would be packaged into barrels at the Kiggavik site and transported via aircraft to Points
North, Saskatchewan, and onward to ground transportation networks in southern Canada.
The Project would be resupplied annually using a purpose-built dock and fuel storage facility in Baker
Lake, with mill reagents, fuel, and other supplies transported from southern Canada by ship and barge
annually during the open water season. Project materials would be transported from the dock facility in
Baker Lake to the Kiggavik and Sissons sites using a seasonal winter access road, AREVA’s preferred road
option. AREVA is also seeking approval for an optional all-season access road between Baker Lake and
the Kiggavik Site in the event that the proposed winter access road proves to be incapable of adequately
supporting the Project through its full life-span.
Figure 1 shows the locations of major project components, including both access road alternatives.
Based on existing resources and studies, AREVA has outlined four general Project life phases:

Construction — the construction phase is estimated to take three to four years, including the
complete construction of the Kiggavik and Sissons sites, mill facilities, the dock facility on Baker
Lake, access roads, and tailings management facilities.

Operations — the operational life for the mine is estimated at 14 years, based on current
resources at the proposed mine sites. AREVA has noted, however, that should additional
resources be encountered, the life of the Project could be extended to allow for extraction and
processing of the additional resources.
1
Figure 1: Project Location Map, FEIS Figure 1.0-1
2

Decommissioning — decommissioning of the Project is projected to last five years and would
include the demolition of the site and reclamation of any contaminated areas. Closure of the
tailings management facilities would involve covering and then blending the final cover with
the existing topography. Mine rock piles would be covered and re-graded to promote
vegetation growth and to provide wildlife access.

Post-decommissioning and monitoring — post-decommissioning and monitoring for the
Project is projected to last for up to 10 years. AREVA notes that detailed decommissioning
plans and financial securities would be required for the Kiggavik Project, should it be approved
to proceed.
1.2
Procedural History
1.2.1 Key Procedural Steps in the Screening and Review of the Project
Proposal
Table 1 below provides a summary of the key procedural steps associated with the Nunavut Impact
Review Board’s (NIRB or Board) Screening and Review assessments for the Kiggavik Project,
commencing with the receipt of the original project proposal from AREVA on November 25, 2008 and
continuing through to the completion of the Board’s Final Hearing in Baker Lake on March 14, 2015.
Table 1 also identifies key milestones, opportunities for public participation, and involvement of
parties and intervenors throughout the NIRB’s Screening and Review processes and associated
timelines.
As this summary is not exhaustive, parties wishing to develop a more complete understanding of the
activities associated with the Board’s assessment for this project proposal are encouraged to consult
the complete listing of all associated documentation available from the NIRB’s public registry for the
Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003). Copies of the specific documents referenced in the listing
and associated with the NIRB’s Review of the Project can be accessed online from the Board’s public
registry at the following location: http://ftp.nirb.ca.
3
Table 1: Procedural History
Screening
Step
Party
Timeline
Process Steps
Notesa
AREVA Resources
Canada
Incorporated
(AREVA or
Proponent)
November 25,
2008
Nunavut Impact Review Board
(NIRB or Board) receives Kiggavik
Project Proposal from AREVA
Proposal also submitted to:
Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC), Nunavut Water Board (NWB),
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada (INAC), Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA)
NPC
January 16,
2009
NPC issued a positive conformity
determination for the Kiggavik
project proposal
Correspondence noted that, with respect to sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the
Kivalliq Regional Land Use Plan which require review of all issues relevant
to uranium exploration and mining by the NPC, as well as approval of the
people of the region, the NPC has concluded that these requirements
have been met.
NIRB
January 20,
2009
NIRB request public comment
Distribution list includes Hunter and Trappers Organizations (HTO),
Hamlet offices of 7 communities in the Kivalliq region, relevant Federal
and Territorial Agencies, Inuit Organizations, Transboundary communities
and groups, and interested parties.
Public/Parties
February 18,
2009
Comments on project proposal
provided to NIRB
Comments from: KIA, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), Government
of Nunavut (GN), CNSC, INAC, Environment Canada (EC), Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Parks Canada
(PC), Transport Canada (TC), Baker Lake HTO, Athabasca Denesuliné
Negotiation Team (ADNT), Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN), Beverly
and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), Baker Lake
Concern Citizens Committee, Barbara Mueller (Baker Lake), Paula
Hughson, (Baker Lake), Mary Jo Cullen (Toronto), AREVA Community
Liaison Officer, Forum Uranium Corp., Mining Watch Canada, and The
Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium.
NIRB
March 13,
2009
Screening decision report issued to
the responsible Minister
Project recommended for review under NLCA Part 5 or Part 6 of Article 12
1
of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA)
Minister
responsible (INAC)
February 23,
2010
Minister issued decision
Project referred to the NIRB for review under Part 5 of Article 12 of the
2
NLCA . Minister makes special reference to the need for public
participation in the review process, including intervenor funding.
1
Screening
4
Review Step
1 Community
scoping
Notesa
Party
Timeline
Process Steps
NIRB
March 3,
2010
Minister decision distributed and
NIRB review commences
NIRB
March 12,
2010
Draft scope released for comments
Correspondence included summary of first steps of review process and
availability of intervenor funding
NIRB
April 25,
2010-May 10,
2010
Public scoping meetings
Meetings held in all seven Kivalliq communities: Arviat, Baker Lake,
Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat),
Whale Cove
NIRB
June 14, 2010
Public scoping meeting report
3
released
Report summarized community scoping sessions
INAC
August 3,
2010
Participant funding awarded for
intervenor applications
Funding awarded to: BQCMB, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee
(CARC), Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), AD, Baker Lake HTO,
LKDFN, and the Hamlet of Baker Lake
NIRB
November 15,
2010
Revised draft scope and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) Guidelines released for
comment
Public/Parties/
Intervenors
January 25,
2011
Comments on the Revised Draft
Scope and Draft EIS Guidelines
provided to NIRB
NIRB
February 9,
2011
Final scope released and Revised
Draft EIS guidelines released for
comment
Public/Parties/
Intervenors
March 2,
2011
Comments on the Revised Draft EIS
Guidelines provided to NIRB
Comments from: KIA/NTI, GN, CNSC, INAC, EC, DFO, HC, NRCan, Baker
Lake HTO, BQCMB, Makita, and AREVA.
NIRB
March 21,
2011
Community information session
Information session held in Baker Lake to discuss the Kiggavik project.
NIRB
March 22-24,
2011
EIS guidelines development
workshop
Held in Baker Lake. Parties in attendance: NTI, KIA, GN, CNSC, INAC, DFO,
EC, TC, BQCMB, Makita, CARC, AREVA
2 Guidelines
Development
Comments from: NTI/KIA, GN, CNSC, INAC, EC, DFO, EC, DFO, Health
Canada (HC), NRCan, TC, ADNT, BQCMB, CARC, LKDFN, Makita, Laura
Bowman (private citizen)
4
5
Review Step
3 Draft EIS
4 Conformity
Review of DEIS
3a Draft EIS
4a Conformity
Review of DEIS
5 Technical
Party
Timeline
Process Steps
Notesa
Inuit Uqausinginnut
Taiguusiliuqtiit
March 21-25,
2011
Uranium language terminology
workshop
NIRB attended language workshop in Baker Lake.
NIRB
May 3, 2011
EIS guidelines issued to Proponent
AREVA
December 21,
2011
Proponent develops and submits
Draft EIS to NIRB
NIRB
January 18,
2012
Notification given that the DEIS did
not conform to EIS guidelines
AREVA
April 25, 2012
Proponent develops and submits
revised Draft EIS
NIRB
May 4, 2012
DEIS conforms to EIS Guidelines
and parties requested to submit
information request
NIRB
May 22-31,
2012
Community information sessions
NIRB
June 4, 2012
DEIS distributed and information
requests solicited
Public/Parties/
Intervenors
June 29, 2012
Parties submit information
requests (IR) to NIRB
IRs from: KIA/NTI, GN, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Canada (AANDC, previously INAC), CNSC, EC, DFO, HC, NRCan, TC, Baker
Lake HTO, BQCMB, CARC, LKDFN, Makita
NIRB
July 13, 2012
IRs forwarded to relevant parties
IRs request additional information from Proponent and other parties
AREVA/Parties/
Intervenors
January 31,
2013
Responses to IRs submitted to NIRB
NIRB
February 6,
Technical review period
5
Requested that AREVA address deficiencies identified and resubmit.
Meetings held in all seven Kivalliq communities: Arviat, Baker Lake,
Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat),
Whale Cove
60 day technical review period of DEIS. Notice of Technical Meeting and
6
Timeline
Process Steps
Notesa
2013
commences
Pre-hearing Conference (PHC) provided within notice.
Public/Parties/
Intervenors
April 8, 2013
Technical review comments on the
DEIS provided to NIRB
Comments from: KIA/NTI, GN, AANDC, CNSC, EC, DFO, HC, NRCan, TC,
Baker Lake HTO, BQCMB, CARC, and Makita
AREVA
May 8, 2013
Responses to technical review
comments submitted to NIRB
Responses to facilitate Technical Meeting
NIRB
May 28-31,
2013
Technical meeting, Rankin Inlet
Held in Rankin Inlet. Parties in attendance: NTI, KIA, GN, CNSC, AANDC,
EC, DFO, NRCan,, TC, Baker Lake HTO, BQCMB, and AREVA
NIRB
June 4-6,
2013
Community roundtable and PHC
Held in Baker Lake and facilitated by Elizabeth Copland, Chairperson.
Parties in attendance: NTI, KIA, GN, AANDC, CNSC, EC, DFO, NRCan, TC,
Baker Lake HTO, BQCMB, AREVA and community representatives from
Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse
Bay (Naujaat), Whale Cove
NIRB
July 4, 2013
NIRB issues PHC report
NIRB
September 4,
2014
Community information session
Held in Baker Lake
NIRB
September
22-24, 2014
Community information session
Held in Wollaston Lake, Black Lake, and Fond du Lac; Northern
Saskatchewan
AREVA
October 1,
2014
Proponent develops and submits
final EIS
9 Compliance
Review of FEIS
NIRB
October 2,
2014
Compliance review begins
Compliance review with NIRB’s EIS Guidelines and PHC Decision
10 Technical
Review of FEIS
NIRB
October 17,
2014
FEIS conforms and technical review
period commences
90 day technical review period of FEIS.
NIRB
October 31,
2014
Public Notice of the Final Hearing
Issued
Notice includes information regarding how to seek formal intervenor
status at the Hearing.
Review Step
Party
Review of DEIS
6 Technical
Meeting
7 Pre-Hearing
Conference
8 Final EIS (FEIS)
6
7
Review Step
11 Final Hearing
Party
Timeline
Process Steps
Notesa
Public/Parties
December 15, 2014
Applications for Intervention Status
filed
Applications received from: Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land
Corporation (AD), Baker Lake Hamlet, Baker Lake HTO, BQCMB, CARC,
LKDFN, Makita, Paula Hughson (Baker Lake)
NIRB
December 1223, 2014
Intervention status granted to all
applicants
Public/Parties/
Intervenors
January 1617, 2015
Final written submissions on the
FEIS provided to NIRB
Final written submissions from: NTI/KIA, GN, AANDC, CNSC, EC, DFO, HC,
NRCan, TC, Baker Lake HTO, AD, LKDFN, BQCMB, Makita and Paula
Hughson (Baker Lake).
NIRB
January 27February 3,
2015
Community information sessions
held for Final Hearing
Meetings held in: Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Rankin Inlet and Whale
Cove. Stormed out of Repulse Bay (Naujaat), Coral Harbour and Arviat.
AREVA
February 13,
2015
Written responses to final written
submissions submitted to NIRB
Responses to facilitate Final Hearing
NIRB
March 3-14,
2015
Final Hearing including technical
sessions and community
roundtable
Held in Baker Lake and facilitated by Elizabeth Copland, Chairperson.
Parties in attendance: NTI, KIA, GN, CNSC, AANDC,, EC, DFO, NRCan, TC,
Baker Lake Hamlet, Baker Lake HTO, AD, LKDFN, BQCMB, Makita, Paula
Hughson, AREVA and community representatives from Arviat, Baker Lake,
Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat),
Whale Cove.
NOTES: a = Abbreviations: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), Athabasca Denesuliné Negotiation Team (AD), Baker Lake HTO, Beverly and
Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (CARC), Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Environment Canada (EC),
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Government of Nunavut (GN), Health Canada (HC), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA), Lutsel K’e
Dene First Nation (LKDFN), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC), Nunavut Tunngavik
Incorporated (NTI),
Nunavut Water Board (NWB), Transport Canada (TC).
1: see http://ftp.nirb.ca/01-SCREENINGS/COMPLETED%20SCREENINGS/2009/09MN003-AREVA/03-DECISION/.
2: see http://ftp.nirb.ca/02-REVIEWS/ACTIVE%20REVIEWS/09MN003-AREVA%20KIGGAVIK/2-REVIEW/01-SCREENING%20DECISION/.
3: see http://ftp.nirb.ca/02-REVIEWS/ACTIVE%20REVIEWS/09MN003-AREVA%20KIGGAVIK/2-REVIEW/04-SCOPING%20%26%20GUIDELINES/01-SCOPING/04SCOPING%20REPORT/.
4: see http://ftp.nirb.ca/02-REVIEWS/ACTIVE%20REVIEWS/09MN003-AREVA%20KIGGAVIK/2-REVIEW/04-SCOPING%20%26%20GUIDELINES/01-SCOPING/.
5: see http://ftp.nirb.ca/02-REVIEWS/ACTIVE%20REVIEWS/09MN003-AREVA%20KIGGAVIK/2-REVIEW/04-SCOPING%20%26%20GUIDELINES/02-EIS%20GUIDELINES/04-FINAL/.
6: see http://ftp.nirb.ca/02-REVIEWS/ACTIVE%20REVIEWS/09MN003-AREVA%20KIGGAVIK/2-REVIEW/08-TECH%20MEETING%20%26%20PHC/2-PREHEARING%20CONFERENCE/05-PHC%20REPORT%20%26%20DECISION/.
8
1.3
Purpose of this Report
This Final Hearing Report presents the results of the NIRB’s Review of the proposed Kiggavik Uranium
Mine Project pursuant to section 12.5.6 of Article 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The
report contains the NIRB’s assessment of the project and its impacts, and its determination of whether
the project should proceed based on this assessment.
The reporting parameters for the Board’s determination are found in section 12.5.6 of the NLCA:
12.5.6 After reviewing the project proposal, NIRB shall issue a report to the Minister
and the Proponent containing:
(a) its assessment of the project and its impacts;
(b) its determination as to whether or not the project should proceed
based on its assessment under (a); and
(c) in the event the project were to proceed, terms and conditions
reflecting the primary objectives set out in Section 12.2.5.
1.4
Jurisdiction of the Board
The Board has jurisdiction over the Review of this Project pursuant to Article 12, Part 5 (Review of
Project Proposals by NIRB) and Part 12 (Application) of the NLCA.1 When a Review is required under
NLCA Article 12, Part 5, Section 12.10.1 of the NLCA prohibits the issuance of licences or approvals
required to allow a project to proceed until after the Review has been completed and a NIRB project
certificate is issued.
1.5
The Mandate of the Board
Section 12.2.5 of the NLCA states that:
In carrying out its functions, the primary objectives of NIRB shall be at all times to
protect and promote the existing and future well-being of the residents and
communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, and to protect the ecosystemic
integrity of the Nunavut Settlement Area. NIRB shall take into account the well-being
of residents of Canada outside the Nunavut Settlement Area.
In the present context, the function of the Board is to gauge and define the extent of the regional
impacts of the Project Proposal, including a review of the ecosystemic and socio-economic impacts of
the Project, to determine if the Project should proceed, and if so, under what terms and conditions.
Reflecting the provisions of the NLCA, in carrying out this function, the NIRB’s primary objective is at
all times the protection and promotion of the existing and future well-being of the residents and
1
As directed in the letter from the Honourable Chuck Strahl, then-Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada, dated February 23, 2010 (received March 2, 2010), referring the Project Proposal to the NIRB for a
review of the ecosystemic and socio-economic impacts under Part 5 of Article 12 of the NLCA.
9
communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, and protecting the ecosystemic integrity of the Nunavut
Settlement Area.
1.6
Evidentiary Issues
1.6.1 The Burden and Standard of Proof
The Proponent has an onus of proof to demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the Board’s
mandate and requirements of the NLCA.
The burden of persuading the Board that the Project can proceed rests with the Proponent. It is the
responsibility of the Proponent, in whose interest the proposal has been filed, to prepare an impact
statement that fully reflects the NIRB-issued guidelines and Minister’s direction so that the Board may
conduct a full review of the matters relevant to its mandate2 and determine whether the Project may
proceed, and if so, on what terms and conditions.
The standard of proof is the civil standard, on a balance of probabilities.
In this case, the absence of a definite start date for the Project has adversely affected the capacity of
the evidence and submissions tendered by AREVA to meet the burden and standard of proof. The
Board conducts a predictive exercise, and its confidence in predictions diminishes over time. Many of
the Intervenors commented on the need to revisit the predictions in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement because the passing of time will undermine the confidence in the predictions, and require
additional new information to be incorporated into the assessment.
The Board respects that project development may not be absolutely certain when matters come
before it for review. However, as uncertainty in project commencement extends further over time,
the Board’s confidence in the assessment predictions diminishes. The Board found that this has given
rise to uncertainties in the assessment of project effects upon the enduring significance of caribou,
fish and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and communities of the Nunavut
Settlement Area. These uncertainties are such that, in the view of the Board, the onus of proof has
not been met, and the project should not proceed at this time.
1.6.2 The Precautionary Principle and Adaptive Management
With respect to areas where there are substantial gaps in data or uncertainty regarding predicted
effects, the Board is guided by the “precautionary principle”. In Canadian environmental assessment
decisions and case law, the most widely cited description of the precautionary principle is found in
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992): “Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” [emphasis added].3
2
See sections 12.5.1 and 12.5.2 of the NLCA.
UN (United Nations). 1972. Rio declaration on environment and development. In: Report of the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm; pp. 5-16.
3
10
This version of the principle has been cited by the NIRB in the past, and was cited in the EIS Guidelines
issued by the NIRB for the Kiggavik Project.
When the precautionary principle applies, as is the case here with respect to some predicted effects, it
is the project Proponent who bears the burden of proof to show that despite the uncertainty, the
potential adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated or reversed. The burden on the Proponent
created by the precautionary principle in the case of the Kiggavik Project was laid out in the NIRB’s
“Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated’s Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003)” (i.e. EIS Guidelines). The EIS Guidelines
issued by the NIRB for the Kiggavik Project required the Proponent to:
 Demonstrate that the potential effects of the proposed Project are examined in a manner
consistent with the precautionary principle in order to ensure that they do not cause serious
or irreversible damage to the environment;
 Outline the assumptions made about the effects of the proposed Project and the approaches
to minimize these effects, including assumptions that are developed where scientific
uncertainty exists;
 Identify any follow-up and monitoring activities planned, particularly in areas where scientific
uncertainty exists in the prediction of effects; and
 Present public views on the acceptability of these effects.
The application of the precautionary principle in environmental decision-making results in decisions
which reflect the potential for adverse environmental impacts, even though the risk of such impacts
cannot be definitively proven.
In the context of environmental assessment and project approvals, implementing a precautionary
approach to decision-making also generally involves the adoption of adaptive management tools to
address the potential for adverse impacts that are not fully understood at the time a project is
proposed and reviewed. Adaptive management is an ongoing process of decision-making that
involves making initial decisions based on the existing data, subsequently monitoring for potential
effects, assessing the effectiveness of the initial decisions (including assessing the effectiveness of
mitigation measures) and then adjusting actions going forward to reflect the monitoring data and the
effectiveness of measures taken to minimize adverse effects. Adaptive management enables such
projects to proceed, but in a manner that ensures the mechanisms chosen to manage the predicted
effects are adjusted, when necessary, to reflect subsequent information that provides a more
complete understanding of the nature, extent and appropriate management of such effects. The
implementation of adaptive management is both consistent with, and supported by, the NIRB’s
project monitoring jurisdiction as set out in Part 7 of Article 12 of the NLCA. In addition, Part 8 of
Article 12 of the NLCA expressly recognizes the need for flexibility in relation to project certificates
developed by the NIRB, and provides the NIRB with the jurisdictional basis to revisit and modify, as
required to meet the Board’s objectives, the terms and conditions of a project certificate. Adaptive
management provides the basis for environmental decision-making in the face of uncertainty
surrounding the nature and extent of effects that is often inherent at the environmental assessment
stage. Adaptive management cannot in all cases mitigate a lack of confidence in the predictions of
effects at the environmental assessment stage.
11
1.6.3 Inuit Qaujimaningit
As indicated in both the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines and the Board’s previous
decisions, in the Board’s view, Inuit Qaujimaningit, which encompasses Inuit Traditional Knowledge
(and variations thereof) as well as contemporary Inuit knowledge that reflects Inuit societal values and
experience, contributes vital information to the NIRB’s Review process. The term Inuit Qaujimaningit
is meant to encompass local and community-based knowledge, ecological knowledge (both traditional
and contemporary), which is rooted in the daily life of Inuit people and represents experience acquired
over thousands of years of direct human contact with the environment.4,5 With its emphasis on
personal observation, collective experience and oral transmission over many generations, Inuit
Qaujimaningit provides factual information on such matters as ecosystem function, social and
economic well-being, and explanations of these facts and casual relations among them. In this regard,
Inuit Qaujimaningit has played a significant role in this Review by: contributing to the development of
accurate baseline information; comparing predictions of effects with past experience; and assisting in
the assessment of the magnitude of projected effects.
The Proponent was required to incorporate Inuit Qaujimaningit into the EIS, to the extent that the
Proponent had access to such information and in keeping with the expectation that the Proponent
would undertake appropriate due diligence to gain access to the information but may be limited by
obligations of confidentiality and other ethical obligations that may attach to such information. In
addition to Inuit Qaujimaningit provided as part of the EIS or in questions or responses provided by
the intervenors, during the approximately two days of Community Roundtables at the Final Hearing,
Elders, Inuit harvesters and other community members freely shared Inuit Qaujimaningit with the
Board. The NIRB has benefitted from the Inuit Qaujimaningit provided in the FEIS and shared by the
participants at the Final Hearing.
1.7 Scope of the NIRB’s Assessment and Environmental Impact
Statement Guidelines
On the basis of comments received and the NIRB’s screening of the Project Proposal, when the Board
issued its screening decision report to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on
March 13, 2009, the Board identified the following as issues that should be considered if the Project
proceeded to a review under Article 12, Part 5 of the NLCA:

Works in and around water such as the construction of bridge crossings or cable-ferry/ice
bridge crossing over the Thelon River;

Centre and Main Zone Tailings Management Facilities (TMF) based on the “in-pit” disposal
concept;

Potential seepage from the subaqueous disposal of mill tailings from the TMF;

The dyking and dewatering of a portion of Andrew Lake;
4
Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Inglis, J. (ed.), Traditional Ecological
Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature, pp. 1-9.
5
Stevenson, M. G. 1996. Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic, 49(3), 278-291.
12
6

Potential impacts to wildlife, especially caribou, caribou migration and caribou calving
grounds;

Potential effects on heritage resources;

Potential impacts to surface water quality from deposition of tailings and mine effluent, and
from contact water runoff from landfill sites;

Potential impacts to surface water quality from the use of explosives;

Potential for acid rock drainage (ARD) and metal leaching from open pit mine surfaces, waste
rock stockpiles, potential all-season access road construction materials, and ARD related
alteration of groundwater during underground mining below permafrost;

Effects of construction, closure and post-closure activities relating to site runoff and road
crossings on surface water quality of natural waterbodies and adjacent areas;

Potential impacts of the proposed all-season or winter access road on the surrounding
environment including water quality; ground stability and permafrost, vegetation; soil; and
wildlife;

Potential impacts from underground mine (East Grid) to groundwater quality;

Anticipated impacts of construction, operation, and closure activities on specific vegetation
associations and geomorphological structures;

Potential of cumulative impacts resulting from ongoing and incremental land use activities
associated with this and other mining, terrestrial transportation and marine shipping in the
Kivalliq region;

Potential impacts to air quality;

Potential impacts to human health associated with uranium mining;

Potential impacts to marine water quality;

Potential impacts to wildlife resulting from human activities and habitat loss associated with
mining activities;

Species at risk as a result of habitat loss and disturbance from project activities;

Migratory birds as a results of habitat loss and disturbance from project activities;

Transportation of ore concentrate (yellowcake);

Impacts resulting from accidents or malfunctions which may occur during transportation;

Permafrost conditions (pre-operational, operational and decommissioning) and climate
change impacts on permafrost;

Alternatives design options;

Thelon River status as a Canadian Heritage River; and

Level of information currently available in support of the Project Proposal.6
NIRB Screening Decision Report, NIRB File No. 09MN003, March 13, 2009.
13
The Minister responded to the NIRB’s Screening Decision Report in a letter dated February 23, 2010
(and received by the NIRB on March 2, 2010) directing the Board to undertake a review of the Project
proposal under Article 12, Part 5 of the NLCA.1 The Minister also responded to the following issues of
concern identified in the NIRB’s Screening Decision Report for this file:
1. Use of previous untested technological innovations – the Minister acknowledged that AREVA’s
proposal included the use of technological innovations previously untested in an arctic
environment. In particular, the Minister highlighted uncertainties regarding new technology
for mine design, operations, and tailings containment, and recommended that these aspects
of the project are thoroughly assessed during the Review process.
2. Potential cumulative effects of increasing mineral development in the Kivalliq region – The
Minister noted that the Kiggavik Project was the second major proposed mining development
near the Hamlet of Baker Lake, and emphasised the need for a comprehensive cumulative
effects assessments of potential impacts to caribou and caribou calving grounds and socioeconomic impacts on Baker Lake and surrounding Kivalliq communities.
3. Transportation of yellowcake to southern Canada – the Minister recommended further
scoping of the proposal according the Board’s jurisdictional authority.
4. Inclusion of meaningful public participation in the review process – the Minister noted that the
proposal had and would continue to raise significant public concern, and encouraged that the
Board continue to ensure that community concerns were considered through appropriate
public consultation activities.
5. Availability of participant funding – The Minister agreed with the Board’s comment that
additional intervenor funding may be necessary to allow affected parties to participate fully in
the review, and requested advice regarding the identification of intervenors and funding
requirements to adequately facilitate their participation.1
With these issues in mind, the NIRB prepared a preliminary scoping list for the Project (distributed
March 12, 2010) and conducted public scoping sessions (April 25 to May 10, 2010) in the seven
communities of the Kivalliq region identified by the NIRB as potentially affected by the Project: Arviat,
Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), and Whale Cove. As
indicated in the Board’s Public Scoping Meeting Summary Report, released on June 14, 2010, the
scoping process assisted the Board in identifying those components of the biophysical and/or socioeconomic environment that may be impacted by the Project and/or for which there is public concern.
A Guidelines Development Workshop was facilitated by the NIRB from March 22-24, 2011 in Baker
Lake to assist with finalization of Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (EIS Guidelines) for the
Project. On May 3, 2011 after due consideration of the issues identified during the Board’s Screening,
the issues identified by the Minister and the comments received during the scoping process, and in
accordance with section 12.5.2 of the NLCA, the NIRB provided the Proponent with the EIS Guidelines
for the Project.7
7
NIRB Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for AREVA Resources
Incorporated’s Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003), May 3, 2011.
14
While it is the sole responsibility of a Proponent, subject to a NIRB review, to prepare an EIS that
includes sufficient baseline data and analysis for a complete assessment of the anticipated impacts of
the Project, the purpose of the EIS Guidelines is to assist the Proponent and participants in the Review
by identifying the information requirements and expectations for the EIS that will form the basis for
the Board’s review of the Project. If an EIS conforms to the EIS Guidelines it enables the Board and
interested parties to understand and assess the potential adverse and beneficial biophysical
environmental and socio-economic effects associated with development of the project.
On December 22, 2011 the NIRB received AREVA’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
the Kiggavik project and assessed the Proponent’s DEIS against the EIS Guidelines and found that the
DEIS did not conform. The NIRB requested that AREVA address the deficiencies identified and provide
a resubmission of the Project that would address the deficiencies identified. On April 25, 2012 the
NIRB received AREVA’s revised DEIS submission and commenced an internal review to determine
whether the submission conformed to the NIRB’s EIS Guidelines. On May 4, 2012 the NIRB issued an
updated conformity decision and found that the revised DEIS conformed to the EIS guidelines and
distributed the DEIS for review and comment.
Following public information meetings, information requests, technical review, and the Pre-hearing
Conference associated with the DEIS, further direction was provided to the Proponent regarding
additional information required by the Board and the parties in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and the NIRB communicated these requirements in the Pre-hearing Conference
Decision released on July 5, 2013.8
When the NIRB conducted its 2010 Scoping meetings, the marine transportation route for yellowcake
from the mill was still proposed by AREVA. This was still the case in May of 2011, when the NIRB
Guidelines for the Kiggavik Project were issued. By the time of the Draft EIS, however, the marine
transportation route for yellowcake from the mill had been abandoned by AREVA in favour of an air
transportation system. During the Pre-hearing Conference, the CNSC asked that AREVA update the
FEIS to clarify that the transportation of yellowcake via land in Nunavut had been removed as an
option. AREVA provided this confirmation in its FEIS. As a result of this change, the Board considered
that the scope of the Kiggavik Project included air transportation of yellowcake from the Kiggavik
project aerodrome to the aerodrome in Points North, Saskatchewan, inclusive. The Board also
considered that the Kiggavik Project did not include the marine transport of yellowcake.
The Board received the completed FEIS from AREVA on October 1, 2014, and on October 16, 2014 the
NIRB indicated that the Proponent’s FEIS conformed to the requirements of the EIS Guidelines and the
additional requirements identified in the Pre-hearing Conference Decision, and remitted the FEIS to
the parties for review and comment. A conformity determination simply means that the information
in the FEIS complied with the requirements of the EIS Guidelines, and that the matter could proceed to
Final Hearing. A conformity determination does not mean that the information in the FEIS is
necessarily sufficient to discharge the burden of persuading the Board that the Project can, in the
Board’s judgment, proceed.
8
NIRB Pre-hearing Conference Decision for the Kiggavik Project, File No. 09MN003, July 5, 2013.
15
1.8
Key Issues
The Board’s process was structured to be as inclusive as possible in order to ensure that the Board
undertook its review in such a way as to enable meaningful participation of the public and thorough
public consultation. This necessarily meant that some issues raised by some persons would not fit
easily within the Board’s jurisdiction, or be material to the Board’s deliberations. The Board is of the
view that the benefits which arise from an inclusive process outweigh the inherent burdens associated
with that approach, and that the NIRB is capable of determining the information which is material to
its inquiry, and assigning appropriate weight to question matters which are outside of its jurisdiction
or which are not material to its deliberations.
Several Intervenors questioned whether the requirements of sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Keewatin
Regional Land Use Plan had been met. The Board’s view is that on January 16, 2009 the NIRB received
a positive conformity determination from the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) for this Project
with respect to the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. The Board therefore has jurisdiction to conduct
its Review. The Board does not consider that its role extends to questioning the conformity
determination issued by the NPC.
Both Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NT) and the Government of Nunavut (GN) have uranium
development policies, marked as Exhibits 49 and 19, respectively. During the Final Hearing, some
participants questioned whether the Project had ‘public support’ as required by the NTI and GN
policies. In general terms, the Board is of the view that ‘public support’ is not a precondition to the
exercise of jurisdiction by the NIRB, but is a matter which should guide decision makers at later stages
of the planning and development process. Given its findings in this Report, the NIRB did not find it
necessary to advise the Minister on whether, or not, the Project appeared to have public support.
Whether public support is material to the NIRB or to the NIRB’s recommendations in future reviews
will be a matter to be determined in the specific factual context of any future review.
A motion was filed at the conclusion of the Final Hearing, requesting that the NIRB defer its
consideration of the Project pending a public plebiscite. The Board’s view is that such a plebiscite is
not a prerequisite to the Board’s exercise of its jurisdiction, and that the results of the plebiscite
proposed in Exhibit 79 (‘Should AREVA Resources Canada’ Incorporated’s proposed Kiggavik uranium
mine be approved’) would not assist the Board in its consideration of this proposal. The Board notes
in this respect that Appendix III of the Project Proposal attached Resolutions of the Kivalliq Inuit
Association and the Hamlets of Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet,
Repulse Bay (Naujaat), and Whale Cove. The KIA Motion supported the advancement of the Project to
a NIRB Review. The other Resolutions provided a form of general support to AREVA’s decision to
advance the Project within the planning or exploration process.
One Intervenor referred to uranium mining in Niger and a French Court of Appeal decision in relation
to that. The Board does not view uranium mining in Niger, or France’s legal jurisprudence related to
this, to be relevant to its work. The Proponent in these proceedings was AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated, and its operations in northern Saskatchewan over several decades were the appropriate
comparator -- where comparison was helpful.
A key issue was the absence of a start date for the Project, and how that may affect the Review
conducted by the NIRB. Discussion surrounding this issue was framed by two basic perspectives. One
16
of the two basic perspectives was that of Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, which
submitted that the Project should not be accepted since the studies on which it was based could be
out of date when construction began. The other basic perspective was that of AREVA, which
submitted that flexibility in section 12.8.2(b) of the NLCA allowed the NIRB to reconsider the terms
and conditions contained in a NIRB project certificate. AREVA also pointed out that the Project, if
approved by the NIRB, would be subject to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) licensing in
the regulatory process and that the CNSC process would require updated environmental information
material to the CNSC jurisdiction.
The full perspective of the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization was expressed in its Final
Written Submission:
To allow AREVA to get approval today but build the mine at some undetermined time in the
future may make AREVA’s Environmental Impact Statement outdated by the time the mine is
built. If AREVA’s mine is approved based on studies done today, but not built for 10 or 20
years, the information in the studies will be badly outdated. This could make a mockery of the
entire assessment process that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement created.
In 10 or 20 years, climate change may significantly change caribou migration routes,
permafrost conditions, and groundwater conditions AREVA’s studies of impacts to caribou,
tailings management, and water contamination would then be outdated.
In 10 to 20 years, other mines may be built in the Kivalliq region. This could put new pressures
on caribou herds, making AREVA’s studies of cumulative impacts on caribou dated and
irrelevant. If other mines are built, it could also put new stresses on community life, making
AREVA’s studies of social impacts outdated and possibly irrelevant. Other mines might also
supply more jobs to Inuit in the Kivalliq. If that happened, Inuit might not even need the jobs
from Kiggavik, and people might not even benefit from it. This would make AREVA’s study of
benefits outdated.
If AREVA’s studies become outdated and irrelevant, the mitigation measures it will use to
minimize negative impacts and maximize benefit will also be outdated and irrelevant.
For these reasons, the Baker Lake HTO believe that allowing AREVA to receive approval now,
but decide to build at some unspecified time in the future, is not a responsible way to regulate
mining in Nunavut. The Baker Lake HTO expects more strict regulation of mining in our
hunting territory.
The full AREVA position was expressed in its Response to Final Written Submissions.9 AREVA was of
the view that there were sufficient mechanisms to ensure that the evaluation of risks are reviewed
9
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-48 - 2-49. Similar statements are
found in other sections of AREVA’s Response to Final Written Submissions, and this passage is representative of
the AREVA position. The AREVA position was restated during its opening submissions to the Final Hearing, and is
located in the transcript of the Final Hearing, March 3, 2015, p. 59.
17
and periodically updated in the event of a lag between completion of the NIRB environmental review
process and the commencement of the project. AREVA relied on section 12.8.2(b) of the NLCA, for the
proposition that the NIRB has ability to reconsider the terms and conditions contained in the NIRB
certificate if it is established that "the circumstances relating to the project or the effect of the terms
and conditions are significantly different from those anticipated at the time the certificate was
issued". For clarity, section 12.8.2(b) of the NLCA provides:
PART 8: FLEXIBILITY IN RELATION TO CERTIFICATES
12.8.2 NIRB may on its own account or upon application by a DIO, the proponent, or
other interests, reconsider the terms and conditions contained in the NIRB certificate
if it is established that:
(b) the circumstances relating to the project or the effect of the terms and conditions
are significantly different from those anticipated at the time the certificate was issued;
or
AREVA concluded that “[i]f construction and operation of the Project was delayed for a number of
years, provisions for flexibility in relation to certificates enable NIRB, either on its own account or upon
application by a Designated Inuit Organization (“DIO”), the proponent, or other interests to reconsider
the terms and conditions of the Project Certificate if circumstances were significantly different.”
AREVA additionally submitted that, after receiving a ministerial approval for the Kiggavik Project, the
Proponent must subsequently apply for a licence from the CNSC pursuant to the Uranium Mines and
Mills Regulations. It stated that, at each phase of the Project, the Uranium Mines and Mills
Regulations requires that AREVA obtain a licence by submitting information relating to the proposed
work taking place, and the programs in place to identify, assess and mitigate environmental risks to
validate the project efficacy and operational controls. AREVA noted that the CNSC licensing process
itself provided further opportunity for stakeholder participation
Discussion surrounding these two perspectives centered upon how much time should pass before
predictions expressed in the FEIS might need to be revisited. The GN, for example, recommended that
if the project does not proceed within ten years of the completion of the FEIS, a revised EIS with
updated baseline information should be submitted for screening and possible review of the NIRB.10
The Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) suggested a term and condition which calls for a review and update
of the project baseline and assessment every five years until constructions starts.11 NTI had a similar
position.12 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) spoke to the re-examination of marine baseline data.13
10
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 771,
lines 10-15.
11
D. Ningeongan, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp.
1701-1702, lines 26 and 1-6.
12
D. Ningeongan, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp.
1701-1702, lines 26 and 1-6.
13
G. Williston, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015,
pp. 2093-2094, lines 13-26 and 1-7.
18
Environment Canada (EC) spoke in relation to updating the marine baseline.14 The CNSC noted that, in
the event of a formal licence application, it would first ensure that the project as described in the
licence application continued to fit within the framework of the environmental assessment which the
NIRB had conducted.15 The CNSC took care to explain the limits and focus of its jurisdiction:
We need to clarify when we were talking about what issues we address and our area of
influence. We are responsible for regulating worker and safety and the control of releases
within the facility boundaries and assessing and -- and making sure that those releases did not
pose unacceptable impacts on the -- on the environment and to members of public. So when it
comes to releases from a facility through the atmosphere, through the water, how they move
in transport through the environment that is part of our regulatory oversight. We've been
trying to make it clear that issues related to road transport, barges, air disturbance of caribou,
those kind of issues are not directly within our mandate, nor do we -- you have other bodies
that are far better qualified to -- to regulate and assess those things than us.16
The NIRB is of the view that the flexibility in relation to certificates described in section 12.8.2(b) of the
NLCA, or subsequent CNSC licencing, is not a solution to all issues which may arise in relation to the
absence of a definite start date for the Project. A definite start date for any project is not a necessity
for a project proposal submitted to the NIRB, but it is useful to the Board in making its determination
on a proposal if the proponent provides an estimate start date based on best available
information. The NIRB appreciation of the evidence before it, including evidence in relation to
changes in the environment, quality of baseline data and the socio-economic environment, would be
very different if the proponent was planning on starting as soon as possible after receiving all licences,
as compared to 10 or 20 years in future. Clarity associated with estimated project commencement is
helpful to the NIRB for achieving sufficient confidence in impact predictions and effectiveness of
associated mitigation measures, as well as adequacy of proposed monitoring programs.
2.
PROJECT SETTING17
2.1
Description of Project Location
The Kiggavik project is proposed to take place 80 kilometres (km) west of Baker Lake, in the Kivalliq
region of Nunavut, Canada (see Figure 1). The Kivalliq is one of Nunavut’s three administrative regions
(along with the Kitikmeot and the Qikiqtani).
As of 2011, Nunavut had a population of approximately 32,000 people, distributed among 26
communities between the three regions. The population grew rapidly over the 1980s and 1990s;
14
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, pp. 11041105, lines 24-26 and 1-9.
15
M. McKee, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, pp. 1040-1041, lines 6-26 and 1-6.
16
M. McKee, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1046, lines 5 to 20.
17
Unless otherwise stated, information in this section is based on the information provided by the Proponent in
the Project Proposal and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
19
however, the rate of growth has slowed substantially since the 2000s and is expected to continue to
fall over the next decade. The growth rate is attributed almost exclusively with high birth rates. In
2006, the median age in Nunavut was 23.1 years, compared to a national average of 39.5 years, and
the Kivalliq population is younger than Nunavut as a whole. At the time of the 2006 census, Nunavut’s
population was 85% aboriginal, 99% of whom were Inuit. Compared to the rest of Canada, Nunavut
has large households, low incomes, and low mobility. The fastest growing Kivalliq community in the
past 10 years has been Whale Cove, and the slowest has been Chesterfield Inlet.
Much of Nunavut’s economy is based on subsistence hunting, trapping, and fishing, as well as mining
activities, exploration, construction, tourism, and government services. While tourism and recreation
is a priority sector for development in the Kivalliq region, mining development is projected to be the
greatest economic driver in the near to medium term. Mining job experience, training, and
infrastructure contributions are also of potential value in terms of economic growth. However,
participation in the wage economy has led to decreased time participating in traditional activities, and
changes in family and social structures. Some Elders have noted concerns over the loss of traditional
knowledge and the retention of Inuktitut, especially in younger generations.
The physical environment is dominated by long, cold winters and relatively short and cool summers.
Physical topographic features are largely the result of previous glaciations. The dominant soils are
cryosolic, with a moderate but highly variable active layer above a continuous permafrost layer. Heath
tundra and sedge vegetation are the dominant plant types in the Project area. Surface water is
abundant, mostly in the form of shallow ponds and lakes, connected by small streams and rivers. The
nearest large water body is Baker Lake, which is connected to Hudson Bay via the Chesterfield
Narrows.
2.1.1 Biophysical Conditions
The Project area experiences a continental climate characterized by cold temperatures, low
precipitation and high winds. The winters are long and cold and the summers are short and warm;
transitional seasons are very short. Extreme temperatures in Baker Lake have ranged between 50.6°C
in January and 33.6°C in July with a mean annual air temperature of -11.9°C. The most frequent wind
direction and speed at Baker Lake are north-northwest at 20.5 kilometres/hour (km/h) to 31.7 km/h.
Wind speeds greater than 39.6 km/h (11 metres/second) are most frequent over the period of January
to March. Wind speeds exceeding 100 km/h are expected to occur only once in 30 years. Existing air
quality conditions, noise and vibration levels are all typical of a remote, relatively undisturbed
environment.
Streams average less than 1 metres (m) deep and most streams in the area are frozen to the bottom
throughout the winter. Lakes are typically shallow with maximum depths of less than 3 m and they
are ice covered from October through June with ice thicknesses of approximately 2 m. Over wintering
habitat is found in a few lakes deeper than 3 m. Streams become active at spring snowmelt in midJune with flows gradually receding over the remainder of the open water season. Lakes reach their
level and volume peaks during the spring freshet in mid-June.
The most widely distributed fish species found in lakes in the area is Arctic grayling. Other commonly
identified fish species include burbot, cisco, lake trout, ninespine stickleback, round whitefish and
slimy sculpin. Arctic char, fourhorn sculpin, Lake Whitefish, and longnose sucker are additionally
found in Baker Lake. Arctic grayling, lake trout, ninespine stickleback, and slimy sculpin are common
20
to streams in the area and burbot, cisco, Lake Whitefish and round whitefish are also observed. Arctic
char and longnose sucker use the Thelon River.
Some parameters (pH, ammonia, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, silver,
and zinc) of baseline water quality levels in some lakes and some metal concentrations (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc) in sediment samples were higher than the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment guidelines. This indicates that background levels of these
elements are naturally elevated.
Thickness of the local active layer is highly variable, ranging from 1 to 2 m in surficial sediments to 5 m
in bedrock outcrops. Permafrost depth is estimated to range from about 210 m depth in the Kiggavik
area to about 250 m depth in the Sissons area. There is little to no connection between the deep
(beneath permafrost) and shallow (active layer) groundwater flow systems. Rock within and below
the permafrost has little water movement and is not used as a drinking water source.
The area is dominated by flat lying or gently sloping terrain with rolling and hummocky topography,
frequent bedrock outcrops, and a few low escarpments. Eskers are rare. Surficial deposits consist of a
thin organic layer underlain by mainly glacial till, which varies in texture and composition. Some soil
samples showed trace element concentrations (arsenic, molybdenum, boron) higher than the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment guidelines indicating that background levels of these
elements are naturally elevated. Average depth of topsoil available to salvage for later use in
reclamation is approximately 11 centimetres (cm), with a minimum of 2 cm in upland lichen tundra,
heath upland and heath tundra areas, and a maximum of 31 cm in low-lying wet graminoid and
graminoid tundra areas with thick peats.
The Project area is dominated by tundra vegetation interspersed with lichen-dominated bedrock
outcroppings and boulder fields. Tundra vegetation is characterized by short shrubs such as dwarf
birch, willows and heath species, as well as sedges and grasses, herbs, mosses and lichens.
The Project area is not within caribou calving grounds. The historical Beverly caribou calving ground is
located approximately 70 km away and the Qamanirjuaq calving ground approximately 200 km away.
The Qamanirjuaq and Beverly herds are migratory and they move into the Kivalliq region during the
spring and summer months. Field observations and satellite collar locations showed that the
migratory herds’ use of the area is transient. Three tundra-wintering caribou herds, Lorillard, Wager
Bay and Ahiak, may use the area during winters but move further north for calving. Muskox occupy
the region year-round.
Large predatory species, including grizzly bear, wolverine and wolf, are present throughout the area
but are observed infrequently. Smaller predatory species, such as Arctic fox and ermine, are also
present with Arctic foxes seen as relatively common in the region. Small mammals such as voles,
lemmings and ground squirrels are widespread.
Waterfowl, shorebirds, jaegers, raptors and upland birds annually migrate from southern wintering
grounds to breed in the region during the summer. Only ptarmigan, gyrfalcon and common raven are
residents throughout the year; they are scattered throughout the region and present in relatively
small numbers. The most common species of waterfowl observed in the Baker Lake and Chesterfield
Inlet area are Canada goose, long-tailed duck and common loon. Red-throated, arctic and yellowbilled loons, and tundra swans also use the area.
21
Chesterfield Narrows drains Baker Lake and empties into Chesterfield Inlet. Chesterfield Inlet is a 200
km, salt-water tidal corridor that joins Baker Lake with Hudson Bay. Arctic cod, Arctic sculpin, Arctic
char, fourhorn sculpin, banded gunnel, and whitefish are found around the mouth of Chesterfield
Inlet. In the Hudson Bay, ice generally starts to form in late October and the bay usually becomes ice
free in early August. Capelin and starry flounder are abundant near-shore species in Hudson Bay and
fourhorn sculpin are abundant in shallow waters (below 45 m) throughout Nunavut. Greenland
halibut and Arctic cod are abundant offshore marine fish species in Hudson Bay.
Marine mammals occurring in the regional marine shipping area are polar bear, beluga whales, and
ringed seals. Walrus, bowhead whales and bearded seals are common in other locations throughout
Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait or Foxe Basin, but are considered rare or uncommon near the local
shipping route.
There are no Schedule 1 or 2 listed aquatic, plant or terrestrial wildlife species listed under the Species
at Risk Act (SARA) that occur in the Project area. Three marine fish species, the Northern, Atlantic, and
spotted wolffish, are listed on Schedule 1 of SARA; however, Hudson Strait is designated as ‘probable’
range. Ross’s gull is also listed on Schedule 1 of SARA and is known to breed and use coastal habitat in
southwest Hudson Bay. Ross’s gull are most commonly seen in the Churchill area than anywhere else
in Canada and the last observation of Ross’s gull in the Churchill area was four individuals in 2005.
There are no Important Bird Areas, as identified by Bird Studies Canada, Nature Canada and BirdLife
International through the Important Bird Areas Program, within the marine local assessment area.
The Harry Gibbons and McConnell River migratory bird sanctuaries include coastal habitat in the
region.
2.1.2 Socio-economic Conditions
Nunavut’s economy and people have unique characteristics including 1) the importance of the mixed
economy; 2) a requirement to use renewable and non-renewable resources in sustainable ways that
benefit Inuit; 3) the value of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit to economic and social development decision
making; 4) decentralization to give communities control of their own development; 5) a need to
develop self-reliance in face of overdependence on federal transfers; and 6) a very young and rapidly
growing population with important socio-economic challenges.
Nunavut’s mixed economy has both wage and land based parts. The wage based economy provides
cash income. The land based economy provides food, but also important social and cultural benefits
to Inuit. Most people try to be active in both the wage and land based parts of the economy. The
unemployment rate in Nunavut was about 19% in 2011 and 15% in late 2013, but for young people it
was almost 40%. Most of the unemployed are young Inuit men. In 2006, Kivalliq unemployment rates
were worse than the rest of Nunavut and much worse than Canada. Since 2006 many new jobs for
Kivalliq people became available with the development of the Meadowbank Gold Mine, exploration
companies and businesses supplying mining companies.
Very few people hunt full time or almost full time anymore, but most people continue to go out on the
land. The importance of harvesting to Kivalliq households is demonstrated by country food
substituting for about half of what total food costs would be if all food was bought in stores. The
practice of harvesting also confirms identity, social relations, values and knowledge.
22
The Kivalliq population grew from 7,944 to 10,266 people between 2001 and 2013, an average growth
rate of close to 2% per year. Dated information on education levels shows that less than 40% of adults
have completed high school. On average, younger people are less educated than older people.
The Kivalliq region has lower crime rates than Nunavut as a whole, but rates are still much higher than
in the rest of Canada. Housing is an ongoing problem in all of Nunavut, but is worse in most Kivalliq
communities. More than half of houses are overcrowded or in need of major repairs.
People have maintained their language over the last decade with a strong commitment to Inuktitut.
Most people feel they speak Inuktitut well but they note many children are using English more now
than they did in the past. It has been hard for some people to adjust as a new culture, with different
values, has come in. Inuit no longer live on the land and the culture has changed. Everybody knows
this and most people are focused on how to manage the change.
2.2
Project Description
The Kiggavik Project is a proposed uranium ore mining and milling operation, located approximately
80 km west of Baker Lake, in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, Canada.
The Kiggavik Project collectively refers to the proposed Kiggavik and Sissons mine sites, and the
proposed Baker Lake dock. There are three known ore deposits at the Kiggavik site (East Zone, Centre
Zone, and Main Zone), which would all be mined using open pit methods. There are two known
deposits at the Sissons site (Andrew Lake and Grid End); Andrew Lake would be mined using open pit
methods, while the End Grid deposit would require the use of underground mining methods. Mineral
resources are collectively estimated at 51,000 tonnes (133 million pounds U3O8) at an average grade of
0.46 per cent uranium. All extracted ore would be processed locally through a constructed mill facility
at the Kiggavik site. Mined out pits at the Kiggavik site would be converted to tailings management
facilities. The refined uranium product, also known as yellowcake, would be transported exclusively
via aircraft to Points North in Saskatchewan and from there through transportation networks in
southern Canada.
Mine supplies, including fuel and mill reagents, would be transported by ship and barge to the Baker
Lake dock, and then by road to the mine sites. AREVA included construction of a seasonal winter
access road as a preferred transportation option in its project proposal, with a secondary alternative
option of an all-season access road also included in the event that the proposed winter access road
was found to be unable to adequately support the Project.
2.2.1 Need for the Project
The need for the Kiggavik project is described by AREVA in Volume 1 of its Final Environmental Impact
Statement as development that would:

Realize a return on investment by the owner - The capital cost of the Project is currently
estimated at $2.1 billion with operating costs estimated at $240 million per year. The market
price for uranium concentrate over the last five years has been within the range needed for
reasonable return on investment to owners and future opportunities are strong enough to
23
encourage Project advancement with the intent of development that will coincide with viable
future markets.

Benefit Nunavut communities and contribute to sustainable development - The Kiggavik
Project would benefit communities through employment, business opportunities and
procurement. Benefits would be preferentially targeted to and realized by the seven
communities of the Kivalliq region. The Project can contribute to the goals of economic selfsufficiency and balanced economic development.

Help meet global energy demands and future needs for nuclear power - World uranium
production currently falls short of projected future annual requirements for generation of
clean electricity using nuclear power (as an alternative to electricity generated by fossil fuel
consumption). Uranium from the Kiggavik Project would help to meet the future needs for
nuclear power, which would help reduce, on a global scale, greenhouse gas emissions.
2.2.2 Project Components and Phases
The proposed major project components and activities, as described by AREVA in its FEIS, include:
 Access — AREVA is proposing to construct a 99- kilometre (km) long winter access road from
Baker Lake to the project sites. A 114-km long all-season access road is proposed as a backup option.
 Airstrip and port — The proposal includes the construction of an on-site airstrip, as well as
the construction of a dock facility on Baker Lake.
 Mineral claims — The Project is composed of 37 mineral leases (covering 45,639 hectares).
Thirty-one of the 37 leases (41, 845 hectares) have surface rights administered by the Kivalliq
Inuit Association; the remaining leases (3,794 hectares) are held by the Crown and
administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The Kiggavik site
(East Zone, Centre Zone, and Main Zone) is on Inuit-Owned Lands, and the Sissons site (End
Grid and Andrew Lake) is on Crown land.
 Mining methods — The Project would use both open-pit and underground mining methods.
Mining and milling would take place 24 hours a day, year-round. The net mine production
rate is estimated to be 3,500 tonnes per year.
The mining areas, as outlined in the FEIS, include:
 Kiggavik — Three known deposits (East Zone, Centre Zone, Main Zone) to be mined using
open-pit methods. Mill facility to be located on-site.
 Sissons — Two known deposits (Andrew Lake and End Grid). Andrew Lake to be mined using
open-pit methods, and Andrew Lake to be mined using underground methods.
The project phases, as described in the FEIS, include:
 Pre-development — The pre-development phase is anticipated to last two years after
issuance of a NIRB project certificate, including continued feasibility studies and engineering
activities, the completion of licensing processes required, and contracting and procuring
24
 Construction — The construction phase is estimated to take three to four years, including the
complete construction of the Kiggavik and Sissons sites, mill facilities, the dock facility on
Baker Lake, access roads, and tailings management facilities.
 Operations — The mine operational life is estimated at 14 years for the current proposed
sites. AREVA has noted however that should additional resources be encountered, the life of
the mill may be extended to allow for extraction and processing of the subsequent
resources.
 Decommissioning — Decommissioning is projected to last five years and would include the
demolition of the site and reclamation of any contaminated areas. Closure of the tailings
management facilities would involve covering and then blending the final cover with the
existing topography. Mine rock piles would be covered and re-graded to promote vegetation
growth and to provide wildlife access.
 Post-decommissioning and monitoring — Post-decommissioning and monitoring is projected
to last for 10 years. Decommissioning plans and financial security would be required for the
Kiggavik Project.
2.2.2 Construction and Operations
Construction
On-site construction activities would be expected to take three to four years to complete, with
additional construction activities at the Sissons site ongoing after operations begin at Kiggavik. Key
construction activities outlined in the FEIS include:
 Site grading and excavation for the site, stockpile, and pond pads;
 Grading and excavation for the freshwater diversion channels;
 Road and airstrip construction;
 Aggregate sourcing and crushing;
 Foundation installation;
 Erection of the mill, acid plant, powerhouse, mine shops, and accommodation complex;
 Tank farm construction;
 Temporary construction power generation;
 Installation of pipelines and power distribution lines;
 Purpose built pit;
 Equipment installation and commissioning; and
 Transportation of construction fuel and supplies.
In addition, temporary structures would be constructed on-site during the construction phase,
including a temporary water treatment plant, skid-mounted diesel generators, camp trailers, offices,
batch plant, crusher, and an ice airstrip on Pointer Lake.
The Project is located in a continuous permafrost zone, requiring additional construction
considerations. Heavily loaded and sensitive mine site building foundations would be built on
25
competent bedrock, and at-grade structures would be built on engineered granular backfill. Relatively
good quality bedrock exists close to the surface at the selected mill site. Overburden and weather
bedrock would be removed and the excavation backfilled with engineered structural fill. Outside of
the main mill site, structures would be constructed on highly variable ground conditions; therefore the
construction of the foundations for auxiliary buildings would be specific to their location and structure.
Large quantities of aggregate would be required for construction activities. Aggregate would be
sourced from Type 1 mine rock from the purpose-built pit and from rock obtained in the project
vicinity. Later in the project, aggregate would be sourced from the open pit mine operations.
Most project infrastructure would be located on relatively dry ground, and freshwater diversion
channels would be constructed early on to reduce runoff and maintain dry construction conditions.
The diversion channels would be designed to ensure the passage of fish through the construction site,
and would utilize best practices to reduce permafrost degradation and sediment transport.
Site dewatering would be required at the Sissons site to fully access the Andrew Lake deposit. The
lake would be fished-out prior to dewatering, in consultation with the local communities and
regulators. Approximately 30,000 cubic metres (m3) of volume will need to be dewatered.
Operations
Proposed mine activities are centered on open pit and underground mining methods at the Kiggavik
and Sissons sites. The mining plan has been integrated with the tailings management plan to
sequentially convert the Kiggavik open pits to tailings management facilities (TMF). Mining and
stockpiling activities would commence first at the Kiggavik site, and milling would commence upon
completion of the first TMF. Construction of the Sissons site would be ongoing during operations at
the Kiggavik site. The proposed open pit mines would be mined using conventional drilling and
blasting techniques, whereas the underground mind at the End Grid deposit would use a drift and fill
method.
A mine rock management plan is proposed and designed to avoid interaction between mine rock and
natural water bodies, maximize the use of mine workings for long-term management, maximize the
use of mine rock as a construction material, and ensure the long-term protection of the Project’s
physical and socio-economic environment.
Ore mined from the Andrew Lake and End Grid deposits would be hauled to the Kiggavik site for
processing via hydrometallurgical methods. Ore pads would be constructed at both sites to control
drainage and facilitate water management. The nominal capacity of the milling facility is estimated at
3,190 tonnes of ore at 0.4 per cent uranium per day, to produce up to 4,000 of uranium concentrate
per year. The key processes included in the mill proposal are the crushing and grinding to facilitate the
leaching of the uranium from the ore, the separation of the uranium particles from the solution, and
the extraction, purification, and drying of the uranium as yellowcake.
A tailings management plan has been designed to prevent interaction between mine tailings and
natural water bodies, maximize the mine works for long-term management of tailings, and to ensure
long-term environmental protection of the site and surrounding areas. Tailings would be deposited in
the three open pits at the Kiggavik site, and neutralized and treated to control uranium, radium-226,
and trace metal concentrations. Treated tailings would be deposited sub-aqueously, to a minimum
depth of five metres (m), and then later covered with mine rock. Approximately 11.5 million tonnes of
26
tailings solids would be expected to be generated, with a containment volume conservatively
estimated at 21 million m3. At closure, the TMFs would be covered and prepared for re-vegetation
and integration in the local topography.
A water management strategy has been developed with the primary objectives of minimizing the
intake of freshwater and the release of treated effluents into the local environment. All water in
contact with mine activities would be intercepted, contained, analyzed, and treated, and all water
released to the environment would meet the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, as well as site-specific
criteria defined during the licensing processes for the Project.
The majority of supplies and equipment required for project operations would be shipped via marine
transport during the open water season, conservatively estimated at 60 days each year. Shipments
would arrive at the Baker Lake dock facility, and then continue to the mine sites by winter or allseason access road. Approximately 55,400 tonnes of diesel fuel would be transported annually during
the peak consumption years, along with 91,000 tonnes of dry goods. Approximately 4,800 tonnes of
yellowcake would be transported out of the mine sites via air annually.
2.2.3 Decommissioning and Reclamation
Decommissioning
The Preliminary Decommissioning Plan includes the removal and stabilization of all constructed
structures and the reclamation of disturbed areas such that the environment would be considered
safe for human and non-human use, long-term adverse effects would be minimized, the reclaimed
landscape would be stable and self-sustaining, and restrictions on future land use would be minimized.
Financial Assurance would also be required as a condition of approval by regulatory agencies. The
projected schedule for decommissioning beyond the operations phase is 10 years of decommissioning
activities, plus an additional five years of post-decommissioning monitoring and reclamation.
For the open pit and underground mines and subsequent TMFs, the Preliminary Decommissioning Plan
includes the complete backfill of the TMFs, the installation of a compacted till cover, and site revegetation. Water treatment and waste management would be needed at both sites until
contaminated tailings pore water is no longer being generated. At the Kiggavik site, the timeline for
this process would be tied to completion of tailings consolidation at the TMFs. Waste management
facilities would need to be maintained until waste generation ceases completely. The facilities would
then be closed and decommissioned in accordance with the Preliminary Decommissioning Plan.
Ongoing monitoring
A monitoring program would be implemented upon completion of decommissioning activities in order
to monitor environmental parameters to ensure conformity to licensing requirements, to verify
success of decommissioning activities, demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements and
objectives, and to quantify any residual environmental effects.
An additional Follow-up Program would be initiated to address necessary and unforeseen mitigation
measures. Radiological clearance surveys would be performed in all reclaimed areas to ensure that
the decommissioned sites are safe for human use. Particular attention would be paid to ensuring that
the land is safe for use for traditional activities, including trapping, hunting and fishing.
27
AREVA estimates the active monitoring phase would last five years, but acknowledges that the actual
period may be longer to satisfactorily demonstrate complete reclamation to regulatory standards.
28
3.
INVOLVEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES
3.1
Engagement Opportunities
3.1.1 Public Consultation
As regards public consultation, the Board’s process is routinely documented in the NIRB Public Registry
and this is accessible via the internet.
The Board’s routine process also includes community consultations. For this Review, the NIRB held
public information meetings in each of the seven communities of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut -Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay (Naujaat) and Whale
Cove – and in three communities of northern Saskatchewan -- Wollaston Lake, Black Lake, and Fond
du Lac.
The Final Hearing was held in Baker Lake, Nunavut, the nearest community to the proposed Project,
and the Board sat extended hours so that members of the public might have the most opportunity to
attend and ask questions. In addition to Elders and other community members who were present
and/or made statements, students from a Grade 11 Social Student Class from the Jonah Amit’naaq
Secondary School attended and asked questions. The NIRB further supported public participation by
enabling the seven communities of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut to each select and send up to five
representatives to attend the whole of the Final Hearing, ask questions and make submissions.
Attendance at any of the NIRB’s public meetings associated with this Project, including the Final
Hearing, was tracked via the sign in sheets associated with these meetings. It is the NIRB’s practice to
ask all participants to sign in at the beginning of each day of proceedings; a full listing of sign in sheets
from the Final Hearing is available online from the NIRB’s public registry: http://ftp.nirb.ca.
For the Kiggavik Project, specifically, a participant funding program to support public participation in
the NIRB review was made available to individuals, Aboriginal organizations, municipal governments of
Nunavut, and incorporated not-for-profit organizations interested in participating in the Review. The
participant funding program was administered by the federal department of Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada (INAC), and could cover eligible expenses, such as travel costs and fees for experts to
support participation, but may not have covered all expenses incurred by a participant. Numerous
individuals or organizations took advantage of this funding to participate in the NIRB Review, including
technical reviews, the Pre-hearing Conference and/or the Final Hearing.
The consultation efforts and opportunities for Nunavummiut and residents of Canada to provide their
comments to the NIRB during the review process are outlined in Table 1 that follows.
The Proponent has undertaken on-going public engagement since 2006, integrating information
gathered into its environmental effects assessment reports. AREVA’s specific consultation efforts are
summarized in Volume 3, Section 3a of the FEIS.
AREVA hired a Community Liaison Officer in May 2006 and an information office was opened in Baker
Lake in August 2006. AREVA and the Baker Lake Hamlet Council cooperated to establish a Community
Liaison Committee to further facilitate dialogue between the community of Baker Lake and AREVA. A
29
Regional Liaison Committee that includes members from all seven Kivalliq communities was
established in 2007. AREVA’s additional engagement activities included open houses, formal and
informal meetings and workshops with organizations throughout the Kivalliq region, tours of the
Kiggavik exploration site and northern Saskatchewan uranium operations, a Project specific blog, radio
shows, and the use of informational videos available on company websites and on YouTube. AREVA
has held or participated in over 428 engagement activities related to the Kiggavik Project over a ten
year period from 2005 to 2015, ranging from high school presentations to Saskatchewan mine site
tours to meetings with Elders groups.
3.2
The Participants
3.2.1 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) is the successor to the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, the
signatory to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). NTI carries out Inuit obligations under the
land claims agreement. This includes the administration and management of Subsurface Inuit Owned
Lands, and the collection of the Inuit share of royalties on both Inuit Owned Lands and Crown land
such as are associated with the Kiggavik Project. NTI is responsible for determining which Inuit
organization discharges implementation responsibilities under Article 39 of the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement. NTI and KIA coordinated their review of the Project for the following purpose:
The purpose of the Kiggavik FEIS technical review was to ensure that the potential impacts and
benefits were comprehensively assessed through scientific, socio-economic and impact
assessment best practices. But more importantly that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) values were
incorporated into impact determination, mitigation, project design, and monitoring programs.
NTI the KIA conducted a technical review of the Draft (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact
Statements (FEIS). NTI was involved in the NIRB process throughout, and participated actively at the
Final hearing.
3.2.2 Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA)
The Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) is a Designated Inuit Organization under the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement, representing interests of Inuit in the Kivalliq region. The KIA supports sustainable
economic development opportunities for Inuit beneficiaries. As a Designated Inuit Organization, the
KIA is mandated to deal with Inuit Owned Land management issues within the Kivalliq region.
Through its Lands Department the KIA administers the use of Inuit-owned surface lands such as are
associated with the Kiggavik Project, in order to meet legal obligations respecting surface land
management. The KIA negotiates Inuit Impact Benefit Agreements in accordance with Article 26 of
the NLCA. NTI and KIA coordinated their review of the Project for the following purpose:
The purpose of the Kiggavik FEIS technical review was to ensure that the potential impacts and
benefits were comprehensively assessed through scientific, socio-economic and impact
assessment best practices. But more importantly that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) values
were incorporated into impact determination, mitigation, project design, and monitoring
programs.
30
KIA conducted a technical review of the DEIS and FEIS. KIA was involved in the NIRB process
throughout, and participated actively at the Final hearing.
3.2.3 Government of Nunavut (GN)
Within its final written submission to the NIRB, the Government of Nunavut (GN) noted that it has a
unique regulatory role relating to mineral resource development in Nunavut, as well as a real and
tangible interest in the outcome of NIRB’s review of the Kiggavik Project. The GN developed its
submissions via an interdepartmental Environmental Assessment Review Team. The GN’s chief
priority was to focus on the proposed management and monitoring plans for the various elements of
the Project. Its overall intent is to ensure the protection of the environment and secure a net-benefit
for Nunavummiut as a whole. The GN’s Environmental Assessment Review Team consisted of two
committees: the Environmental and Human Health Assessment Committee, led by the Department of
Environment; and the Socio-Economic Assessment Committee, led by the Department of Economic
Development & Transportation. These Departments and Public Agencies include:
Environmental and Human Health Assessment Committee

Environment (DOE);

Nunavut Research Institute (NRI);

Health (DH);
Socio-Economic Assessment Committee

Economic Development and Transportation (ED&T);

Community and Government Services (CGS);

Culture and Heritage (C&H);

Education (EDU);

Family Services (DFS);

Finance (FIN);

Health (DH);

Nunavut Housing Corporation; Advising Departments

Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs (EIA); and

Justice (DOJ);
The Environmental and Human Health Assessment Committee focused its review on the assessment of
potential biophysical and human health effects of the Project. The Socio-Economic Assessment
Committee focused its review on the assessment of potential social, economic, and cultural effects
(adverse and beneficial) of the Project.
31
3.2.4 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to
protect the health, safety, security, and environment of Canadians. The CNSC is responsible for
licensing uranium mines and mills in Canada. As such, the CNSC is a regulatory authority for the
Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) of the Kiggavik Project. The CNSC participated as a technical
expert in the NIRB review process and has no decision-making authority with respect to the NIRB
process. CNSC’s technical review of the FEIS focussed on reviewing matters within CNSC’s jurisdiction.
CNSC participated actively in the NIRB Review process. If the Project advances to the Regulatory
stage, the CNSC would initiate its own licensing review, and this would include a further public hearing
process before the CNSC itself.
3.2.5 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) is the federal government department
responsible for meeting the Government’s obligations and commitments to First Nations, Inuit and
Métis, and for fulfilling the federal government's constitutional responsibilities in the North. In
Nunavut, AANDC has responsibilities for land and water resource management. In the NIRB Review
process, AANDC provided technical advice relative to its mandate and made recommendations to the
NIRB to assist with the Project’s review. AANDC’s review of the FEIS addressed site water
management and treatment, infrastructure and engineering related to mine works, mine tailings, fill
material, and waste rock management, hazardous material management, accidents and malfunctions;
environmental management and protection plans; adaptive management; and socio-economic impact
assessment including socio-economic monitoring and mitigation. AANDC’s Minister, which AANDC
describes in its Written Submissions as being will have a decision making role regarding whether the
proposed project can proceed based on the NIRB’s assessment. If the proposed project is approved to
proceed, AANDC will be responsible for inspecting and enforcing those conditions contained within
any Crown land authorization and water license associated with the Project. AANDC participated
actively in the NIRB Review process.
3.2.6 Environment Canada (EC)
Environment Canada (EC) states that it is responsible for leading implementation of the Government
of Canada’s environmental agenda, and is committed to contributing to the realization of sustainable
development in Canada’s North. EC’s mandate covers the preservation and enhancement of the
quality of the natural environment, including water, air, soil, flora and fauna, as well as species at risk
and migratory birds. In addition to EC’s mandate to conserve and enhance the quality of the natural
environment, the Department administers s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act which prohibits the deposit of a
deleterious substance into fish-bearing waters. EC also administers the permitting of disposal at sea
and participates in the regulation of toxic chemicals and the development and implementation of
environmental quality guidelines pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA
1999). EC is responsible for protecting and conserving migratory bird populations and individuals,
under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA), and administers the Species at Risk Act
(SARA) in cooperation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency.EC participated
actively in the NIRB review process.
32
3.2.7 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
The federal government exercises authority over sea, coastal and inland fisheries within Canada’s
territorial boundaries. Under the Fisheries Act, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for
the management, protection and conservation of fish (which include marine mammals as defined by
the Fisheries Act) and their habitats. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is one of the competent
ministers under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). DFO reviewed the FEIS and made comments based on
its mandate under the Fisheries Act, specifically the management and protection of fish, marine
mammals and their habitat. DFO’s primary focus was the review of proposed developments in and
around fisheries waters. DFO review was conducted to ensure that future works, undertakings and
activities associated with the Kiggavik Project would be in compliance with the applicable provisions of
the Fisheries Act. DFO participated actively in the NIRB review process.
3.2.8 Health Canada (HC)
Health Canada (HC) is responsible to maintain and improve the health of Canadians. HC has no
regulations or permits related to the Project and has provided with technical advice relevant to HC’s
mandate for the NIRB’s environmental assessment of this project. HC submitted information requests
related to radiological impacts to human health, and eight comments in the area of acoustics. During
the Technical Review HC reviewed information on radiological effects and noise, relevant to potential
impacts to human health and submitted eighteen technical comments related to potential radiological
impacts to human health and submitted additional comments on four of the twelve responses
provided by AREVA initial IRs. HC’s reviewed the FEIS focusing on AREVA responses to Draft EIS
Technical Comments, ensuring that commitments made by AREVA for HC information requests and
technical comments had been included in the FEIS. HC did not attend the Final Hearings in Baker Lake.
3.2.9 Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) administers the Explosives Act, and therefore has a regulatory role
in relation to the Kiggavik Project. NRCan conducted a technical review of the FEIS to assess, within
the areas of NRCan’s expertise, the completeness and technical merit of the information presented.
NRCan provided scientific and technical expertise to the NIRB’s Review in the areas of in geology,
permafrost and terrain sensitivity/stability, hydrogeology and acid rock drainage (ARD), metal leaching
and the management of mined materials. NRCan participated actively in the NIRB review process.
3.2.10
Transport Canada (TC)
Transport Canada (TC) is responsible for development and administration of transportation policies
and programs for Canada. TC also has a responsibility to regulate associated transportation
infrastructure, equipment, and personnel in accordance with key relevant pieces of legislation,
including the Navigation Protection Act, Aeronautics Act, Canada Shipping Act, 2001, Arctic Waters
Pollution Prevention Act, Marine Liability Act, Marine Transportation Security Act, and the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
TC’s written submissions focused on a technical review of AREVA’s proposed Oil Pollution Emergency
Plan and Oil Pollution Emergency Plan/Oil Pollution Prevention Plan for the proposed dock site oil
handling facility; marine shipment of fuel and dry cargo via ocean going vessels through Hudson Strait
33
to Chesterfield Inlet; the Emergency Response Assistance Plan for shipment of yellowcake; vessel and
marine port security compliance; aerodrome certification; and transportation of yellowcake in
conformance with the Dangerous Goods Regulations and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations. TC submitted that sections 21 to 23 of
the NPA prohibit the depositing of certain materials in navigable waters or in non-navigable waters
that flow into navigable waters, and the dewatering of navigable waters unless the Governor in
Council provides an Order exempting the specific waterways from the applicability of section 21 to 23;
sand that ss. 21 to 23 of the NPA applies to all waterways irrespective of whether they are listed in the
Schedule of the NPA. Further, if works are necessary for the project to proceed, and if such works
interfere with navigation, the Proponent may request to opt into the NPA to obtain its statutory
approvals, and therefore also its statutory protections, for any works proposed on non-Scheduled
waterways (e.g. for Judge Sissons Lake and Thelon River). During the NIRB review, TC participated
through written submissions to NIRB, technical hearings and pre-hearing conferences.
3.2.11
Baker Lake Hamlet
The Hamlet of Baker Lake is the municipal government of the community of Baker Lake. Its
responsibilities include snow clearing, water delivery, sewage pump-outs, garbage pick-up, and by-law
enforcement. It has eight (8) locally elected counselors and a community mayor, and is managed by a
Senior Administrative Officer who oversees municipal operations. The Hamlet of Baker Lake
intervened to speak to the potential ecosystemic and socio-economic impacts of the proposed Project,
and to gauge and define the extent Project impacts on Baker Lake residents and the capacity of the
Hamlet itself.
3.2.12
Baker Lake Hunters & Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO)
The Baker Lake Hunter’s and Trapper’s Organization (Baker Lake HTO) has assigned powers and
functions recognized through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as including the following:

the regulation of harvesting practices and techniques among members, including the use of
non-quota limitations;

the allocation and enforcement of community basic needs levels and adjusted basic needs
levels among members; and

the assignment to non-members, with or without valuable consideration and conditions, of
any portion of community basic needs levels and adjusted basic needs levels; and (d)
generally, the management of harvesting among members.
The Baker Lake HTO has a representative on the Regional Wildlife Organization, the Kivalliq Wildlife
Board (KWB) and was supported in its intervention during the Final Hearing by the KWB accordingly.
3.2.13
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB)
The Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB) was created to address the multi‐
jurisdictional nature of the Beverly caribou herd and the Qamanirjuaq caribou herd and the multiple
cultures of the people who depend on them, while including Aboriginal peoples in associated decision‐
making processes. The BQCMB presently operates through the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Barren
Ground Caribou Management Agreement among the governments of Canada, Manitoba, Northwest
34
Territories (NWT), Nunavut and Saskatchewan. This Agreement outlines the Board’s mandate,
responsibilities, membership, operational rules and procedures, and the financial obligations of
government parties. The BQCMB reviewed AREVA’s FEIS on and identified concerns and
recommendations for possible terms and conditions for NIRB to include in a Project Certificate. The
BQCMB’s provided input from a co-management perspective, based on both technical review and
contributions from caribou-using communities from across the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou
ranges. It participated actively in the NIRB process, and its Chair participated actively in the Final
Hearings in Baker Lake.
3.2.14
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD)
The Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD) represents the Fond du Lac Denesuline
Nation, Black Lake Denesuline Nation, and Hatchet Lake Denesuline Nation. The AD are signatories to
Treaty #8 and #10 with Canada and are currently in negotiations with Canada, the NTI and KIA with
respect to the negotiation of a comprehensive settlement agreement covering traditional territory in
Nunavut and the South Slave region of the NWT. The AD intervened to speak to the importance of
caribou and the potential for inter-jurisdictional effects of the Project upon caribou herds which
migrate through the Kivalliq region and neighbouring jurisdictions outside of the Nunavut Settlement
Area. Its participation provided an opportunity for the AD to expand and develop environmental
impact assessment and regulatory experience in Nunavut while allowing it to advocate for the
protection of caribou and the prevention/mitigation of risks to caribou, particularly in the calving and
pre/post calving areas.
3.2.15
Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN)
The Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation is centered on the Snowdrift Reserve in the Northwest Territory. It
intervened to speak to the importance of caribou and the potential for inter-jurisdictional effects upon
caribou herds from the perspective of an aboriginal user group.
3.2.16
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita)
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita) was created in 2009 as a registered society under
Nunavut’s Societies Act. It is a volunteer-run, non-governmental organization based in Nunavut
whose purpose is to promote research, public education, and informed discussion about the
cumulative social, environmental and health impacts of uranium development in Nunavut.
3.2.17
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson is the eldest child of Mike Hughson and the late Betty Natsialuk Hughson.
She has a Master's degree in Natural Resources Management obtained in October, 2010. Her Master's
thesis is titled "Our Homeland for the Past, Present and Future and Qamaniq Tugliqpaaq Landscapes
Described by Elder John Killulark." It documented a way of life prior to moving to the community of
Baker Lake in the late '50s. Ms. Hughson intervened to speak to the Project from her perspective as a
resident of Baker Lake with ties to the proposed Project development area and as a beneficiary of the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
35
3.2.18
Local Communities Represented
The NIRB invited five (5) community representatives from each of the seven (7) communities identified
as being potentially affected by the proposed Project to attend the Final Hearing in Baker Lake.
Community organizations were contacted in order to solicit representatives from broad demographic
groups to participate, including local women’s groups, Hunters and Trappers Organizations, Elders’
societies, Hamlet Councils, and youth groups. Where no local group existed, the NIRB sought advice
from regional associations and organizations to confirm participants for the Final Hearing.
A total of 28 community representatives from Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour,
Repulse Bay (Naujaat), Rankin Inlet, and Whale Cove attended the technical sessions of the Final
Hearing and participated directly in the community roundtable portion of the Final Hearing.
The format of the Final Hearing allowed the community representatives to observe the technical
presentations of AREVA and the Intervenors over the first week of the proceedings, after which during
the second week of proceedings they participated directly through the community roundtable portion
of the Final Hearing. During the community roundtable, representatives from each community
replaced the registered Intervenors at the table to hear summary presentations by AREVA regarding
each component of the project proposal, followed by summary presentations from Intervenors
regarding their respective mandates, jurisdictions and the conclusions of their review of the
Proponent’s FEIS. Community representatives were then invited to pose questions to AREVA and/or
Intervenors and to provide their comments and concerns directly to the Board for consideration.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this report include specific reference to relevant comments, issues, and concerns
expressed by community representatives at the Final Hearing; Table 2 below provides a very brief
summary of the key issues, concerns and perspectives offered by the community representatives and
members of the public during the community roundtable sessions.
36
Table 2: Key Issues as Raised by Community Representatives
Subject
Ecosystemic Effects
Air Quality
Issues/Concerns/Comments







Noise and Vibration



Once blasting starts and there will be dust spreading to the surrounding area of the mine
I also have a question in relation to the dust. There was – there were some fires near Yellowknife, and some
of that smoke drifted as far as Repulse Bay.
The dust will fall a long distance. I'm asking you, when you look at these square pictures, is that the boundary
where -- is that the -- is that the boundary that you do your monitors to, or do you go any further or
less? Thank you.
I think that you should do your monitors right out to Chesterfield Inlet, because the radiation will travel a very
far distance, because you're only doing your monitoring very near to your site. So I just – I was all mixed up
now, because you're doing your monitoring so close. I'm more fearful now of this radiation, how it travels.
I'm just wondering, how is the dust going to be collected and how far the vicinity would be under detector for
the dust -- dust. Because up here, the wind gets very strong, and the dust may travel miles and miles. This
may -- this particular thing might be a good thing to try and find out how far and what effect it may have when
it gets in the air. The air that we breathe is valuable to us, because every -- every human, every living thing
breathes the air. I just wanted clarification as to how far it will be able to collect contaminants, if there's
any. I just wanted to get clarification on that.
Not only in wintertime the danger of uranium dust will be flying around, because of a blizzard, but at the same
time, in summertime when the heat and cold begin to dance around, they are going to create kind of small
whirlpools that we every summer that picks up -- we could see some flying dust going up.
It's going to disperse into the atmosphere. It's going to be breathed in by animals and people and to hunters.
It's quite obvious. I noticed that right away. We live in a treeless country or area up here. The air from Baker
Lake reaches into Chesterfield Inlet area quite quickly, especially under strong windy conditions.
I can ask to AREVA. I wonder if you have -- did studies and noticed any fish -- while blasting, if some -- some
fish die as a result of blasting?
The area you are going to be -- is going to be mostly rock, and the rock will send sound quite a ways and a long
distance. I'm not an expert on dynamite or explosions, but I know you will be using dynamites. … but we call it
tiktaalik (phonetic). When they hear that noise, they tend to die very quick.
I was saying that when AREVA make it -- make its presentation in regard to the sea environment or marine
environment, they say the fish or the sea animal can only hear 24 minutes, and they say it's only because of
the damaged propeller. It is not so. Propeller may be making noise like river, nothing more. It is the diesel
37
Subject
Vegetation
Freshwater Quality and
Fish
Terrestrial Wildlife and
Habitat
Reclamation and
Contamination
Issues/Concerns/Comments
that is sending signals to the bottom of the water. It's a good transmitter for miles and miles whichever way.
 Have you guys had any time to see how much vegetation growth is different from the southern part of the
world? Because when you – when you show pictures like this or how a mine is operating and the aftermath of
cleaning it up – like everything’s green already. Like, there are a lot of -- vegetation up here that once you
destroy them, it doesn't take a year or two to regrow. It takes – it takes several years sometimes. Like -- and it
– I think this calls for a lot of the vegetation or the -- like -- like, you cannot grow green grass overnight, that
type of stuff. So I -- I'm just curious as – to see if you guys had -- have any -- done any studies on the impact
that the land will have in the aftermath of cleaning up?
 If your project were to -- given the green light, how much water would you use at the -- at your uranium site at
Kiggavik per day?
 At the mine site there, if it's to be approved, it's in between Fox Lake and Pointer Lake. My question now is,
has there been any studies done within those vicinities as to what kind of impact it may have to those two
lakes, or is there any fish or any -- fish or any -- any sort of life within those two lakes?
 The zooplankton on which the fish eat, will that have an effect on them as well, and how will it affect the fish?
 The question that I wanted to ask to AREVA, if the project proceeds, from what I heard, how are culverts going
to be placed once the roads -- access roads are being built?
 The government should show the people how many caribous are in the herds now before the mine is
approved. To what we have heard in this hearing, our groups finally recommend to the Nunavut Impact
Review Board is do not approve Kiggavik proposal at this time.
 We rely on caribou meat. Regardless what kind of mining company or – they affect a lot of animals, and I know
for a fact that there's going to be impact of caribou
 Are you going to be stopping their work, when they're -- with the migration of caribou or when they -- when
any kind of animals are near that site
 The issue of wildlife has to be seen as a whole, especially caribou -- issues to do with caribou and muskox. Yes,
there are many ways that we can have an economy, but the people of Baker Lake rely on caribou since time
began. They have survived because of caribou.
 Will you only be doing studies on the Qamanirjuaq caribou, or will you also be doing studies on the Beverly
Qamanirjuaq caribou herd?
 After the mine closes down, there's going to be a decommission. Are you going to be using the … indicators
inuksuit? Inukshuks are the indicators. When we were younger, the inukshuks were not destroyed at all,
because they were indicators. Indicators for are hunters, where they are, what animals there are. Those
inukshuks were indicators. This is Inuit knowledge. How do you define the inukshuks if you're going to be
38
Subject
Shipping
Mining Activity
Roads
Socio-Economic Effects
Education and Training,
Livelihood and
Employment
Issues/Concerns/Comments
decommissioning – if you're going to return to -- the land to the original self. Thank you.
 After you decommission, all the contaminants -- contaminated soil, are they going to be left behind? Will the
residual contaminants and tailings be left behind?
 There's definitely going to be increased shipping within the region. Has Environment Canada looked into or
talked about what kind of impact the Hudson Strait, the Hudson Bay, and Chesterfield Inlet will have?
 Has Environment Canada ever conducted -- or surveyed us to see how much marine or ships -- how much
traffic can the Hudson Strait and Hudson Bay and Chesterfield can take before it takes any effects on the
marine life or the -- the caribou or the land itself?
 They use -- they would be using barges, and the water in Baker Lake is utilized by the people of Baker Lake and
also by a lake -- and mammals. If there's any contaminants, this would have to be always surveyed, especially
when the vessels start travelling between Baker and Chester. They really have to keep on top of the survey
that they've been doing.
 Are the barges the same size or small? Maybe perhaps I'll -- are the barges smaller, medium-sized, or a large
size? Because if they're too large, they will be ground, and the lake itself is -- in some parts, is very
shallow. Maybe if there is a spill or -- how -- how would you clear it? How would you do all the cleanup on the
lake or the river?
 How deep underground will you be mining.
 You're running on two options that doesn't really say that oh, okay. We're -- option 1. We're going to go on
the winter road. Option 2, we're going to go on the all-season road. You have -- you have two roads that you
may use. Is there a reason to that?


Human Health and Well
Being


Some of our grandchildren have reached Grade 12, and there are no -- there's not a lot of jobs here in our
communities, and there's not too much to do. On Monday -- that there were no really -- not too many jobs
with the GN in Iqaluit. In -- in five years, our land will change – or our future's going to change, and in ten years
it's going to change again. Yes, there are -- we have children that go to school and have graduated, but once
they graduate, they -- they don't -- there's no jobs for them. We need to think of their future. We, as
parents, we have to think of them.
You say you will provide training and education to those who want to work with your mine, yet you are given
a choice who works within your mine, and us residents don't have a say if we can work or get training.
Can one of you answer me or elaborate a little bit more on what dangers -- dangers can occur on uranium?
When I was talking with a -- a lady from the south there before I came here, she -- she gave me a very good
point on socio-economics. I don't -- I don't know if all mines are like that, but she had a very big concern on
39
Subject
Community
Infrastructure and Public
Services
Contracting and Business
Opportunities
Cultural Resources and
Land Use
Issues/Concerns/Comments
drug using, drug users, and so far I have not seen any -- any of this type of action that you guys might take,
especially on cocaine and whatnot. Because she's -- from -- from her experience, she has noticed that when
mines started in remote locations, all this type of stuff started to occur afterwards within a small settlement
on the mines.
 Once you start developing and start doing – using explosives, how would our health -- would our health -would our health be -- well, will the -- will the plume come down this way and affect us?
 What type of housing is there going to be for your employees?








Employ more Inuit, because there are a lot of skilled people right now, because they're -- they're very
technical right now. They can use the internet. They can use -- they can use all the new techniques, and we do
have a lot of skilled young people right now. And they know, the younger people, our younger generations are
very resourceful. If they are going to be building offices, it was recommended by -- that in the six
communities, once they built the offices, it will be a lot easier for the young people to look for jobs.
This mining project has multiple effects on Inuit culture. It won't help maintain our way of survival.
Our language, and our lifestyles. Uranium, it is a good source of energy, but like all energies, it carries risks
and downsides that needs to be completely managed.
A tank farm in your map, Figure 4.4-5, you say you're building the tank farm in the area of Baker Lake. The
dock that you got on (sic) right now is --was a concern to the local people, and it's going to be built just inland
of that area where they -- where they say it's important to them.
The docks are used by the members of the community, and there are cabins out there. We don't only use our
cabins. We use tents; we go out there for spiritual purposes; we go out there and teach our children how to
cook country food. … Why you are trying to build where we go hunting and to go camping to go for spiritual
healing?
The area in which the proponent is planning to -- to develop, I hear that there are some grave sites up
there. As Inuit, we never forget where our ancestors are buried. Please ensure that there are no damages to
our ancestors' grave sites.
There was a question raised if they can use one dock, but they want to utilize two docks, and they want -- they
want to build their own dock, and can you ask Agnico Eagle, because it's an area where a lot of people dry
their fish and dry their caribou at that site where you want to build your dock.
In regard to the sea mammals, I think I have to consider my future children and my grandchildren, and all my
grandchildren, my great, great, great, great grandchildren.
40
Subject
Issues/Concerns/Comments

Taxes and Benefits

Leadership and
Governance




Other Issues Raised
Accidents and
Malfunctions




You want to build a dock in an area where we dry our meat, and there is good gravel over there. I think that if
you plan -- if the company plans to build a dock in this area, it's going to spoil the pristine area where we -where we dry our -- make dry meat. So do you have any other alternatives for building your dock? Thank you.
That has to do with tax revenue. I'm still a little confused on when there is federal government and other
bodies who will be receiving royalties from the mine if it opens, but GN's not – it makes me wonder, would
that be any different if they had done with devolution?
The policy of NTI, I'd like to know when it was first introduced with NTI. When did it come out?
The uranium policy that you are implementing, is it complete, or are you still working on it? Thank you.
We need to see better wildlife regulations put in place, and that's my concern that I'm raising to NTI How often
do you do your land-use inspection in around here, near Baker Lake? Do you have a helicopter based in Rankin
Inlet and how often? Two weeks? Every month? As we have a lot of mining exploration camps surrounding
Baker Lake.
All we want is to maintain our lifestyle. We want our wildlife; our environment protected the way it is. We
also want proper regulations and rules. We have voiced that, not only to you but to our operational
organization, to the NTI, to the Government of Nunavut.
Is there anything that we can go by if there was to be any fuel spills, any environmental accidents within the
land or the sea regarding this project?
If -- if there was to be some accident to the ship, say, travelling through too shallow pathway, what I want to
find out more is – we do get very high winds in summertime, especially in the fall, and if the -- the ship was to
be grounded -- start probably late -- there's all kinds of sea mammals in the waters that the -- the ships are
going. Even the base would be affected if there was to be a spill or ground ship. I just wanted to find -- find
out more because we do not have emergency measures close to the community.
When you explained to Percy you would have 40,000 pounds -- well, 40 drums in the plane, like -- like he said,
if there should be an accident with the plane, and you're hoping that you will be able to find a plane as soon as
you can, but there has been times up in the north, the planes has been pretty hard to find, and that's just -- I'm
just thinking about, if that's what happened and those 40 drums from a high altitude should fall – I have seen
your drums, which are very heavy drums, and if those should be -- break into pieces, it would be just like an
explosion, because they're strong containers. And they will be scattered all over the place, and the living
animals, they're walking all over the place, no direction, and if they should happen to come around, how -- my
question is, how is it going to affect the food chain downstream? Thank you.
My third question, if the project is to proceed, there is a concern by the Athabasca Denesuline about the
41
Subject
Cumulative Effects
Community Engagement
Inuit Harvesting
Issues/Concerns/Comments
yellowcake being transported by air. How often will the yellowcake be transported?
 The plane that flies from Kiggavik will be travelling through -- through the land and then there are – if the
plane were to crash near the vicinity of the Thelon River and then and if they're -- in the summertime, and
there was a crash carrying yellowcake and it were to disperse to where there are fish and fish habitat while the
river is flowing, how would you go about cleaning up? … My concern is if the plane crashes in that area to spill,
are you positive that you'll be able to clean that when there's spring rivers running, the current is strong. Will
you be able to clean that area that quick?
 My question is that, using the cable ferry during the springtime, the currents are very, very strong, and they
weaken down in the fall time. What do you have planned if something should happen in springtime when the
currents are very strong?
 The Thelon River itself, the harvesters do go up, and there are boats that go. If somebody should break down
or their outboard motor should break down, because there are a lot of hunters that use the Thelon River -- I
mean, maybe practically everybody in Baker Lake has gone through the Thelon River. It's going to be -- will it
be accessible for the people of Baker Lake? Because if you're going to be across it with cables, I heard that
you're going to be using cables. If somebody should have a breakdown with their outboard motors, what
would happen then?
 I think 10 -- 10, 15 years is -- is way, way, way too long. Because things are changing every day, and I'm sure
there's going to be a lot of changes within 10, 15 years.
 Right now we know that the herd is healthy, but if this project is going to open, we're going to have to go
hunting quite a ways further than we usually go. We would have to go way past Whale Cove to go
hunting. But once we see cumulative effects, we're going to have to go further to go caribou hunting.
 Looking at your overview of the project, I truly believe there will be cumulative effects to our land, water, and
air, and this is all I have, we Inuit have.
 We are -- many of us are concerned that, because you don't have a project start date, if you start five -- even
five years from now at the earliest, our knowledge, the research that we gave you is going to be too
outdated. This is my concern as a resident of Baker Lake.
 When Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission did their community visits, did they have any good turnouts within
their community visits?
 Has there been any community consultations [in Baker Lake] regarding this Final Hearing as to what -- what
the community feels about this project?
 When I was a child, the white people were the majority -- people who make decisions. We are the majority
now in Nunavut now. Please take our word and listen to some of the words that we say. What we've been
42
Subject
Monitoring
Issues/Concerns/Comments
trying to say -- and the Elders have been saying -- is that we depend mainly on where we live. We like for you
to take our words and listen to what we say, that the animals are our main source of food.
 For those that have -- have lived here, we could say many things about many things that relate to our
culture. After we started eating store-bought food, we have noticed that there are changes in the produce
that we buy. It's had an effect on some of us. We live off the land, and we live off the country food that we
hunt, which is much more healthier for us. We are living in two cultures, the old and the new. We would like
to see no impacts to the food that we eat.
 The first question here I have is on marine monitoring. If -- if -- if the project was to be approved, would the -would marine monitoring be people from AREVA, or will this be advertised within the region for Inuits to seek
employment on?
 For an example, the people of community of Baker Lake, if they start to see unhealthy animals that are being
caught for -- for consumption, we will have to see whether or not they have been impacted by the uranium
mine. There needs to be something in place right away so that these animals are monitored.
 Very briefly, there has been indication about monitoring of caribou. There are other land animals such as
wolves, wolverines, and grizzlies, and there are a lot of smaller animals that are on the land, on the
tundra. Why hasn't – why hasn't -- there was no indication about the smaller animals. Only caribou have been
indicated. Thank you.
 In regards to the pit mine, I'm sure there's going to -- there's -- the snow is going to accumulate, and there's
going to be a lot of -- there's going to be a lot of rain in summertime. How are you going to monitoring the
snow building up and rain washing up the sand?
 Will our voices be heard? I know you will be monitoring and cleaning up after the project, but I'm concerned
that us residents won't be given the power to stop the project if it becomes too dangerous for our land,
animals, and us Inuit to live here, our only home. We follow our IQ principles, but will you? We will speak for
our land and animals, but will you listen to us when we ask you to stop?
 When he said that -- it sounds pretty attractive when he says that everything is being monitored. Yes, I
believe that, but what they are monitoring is just like the tip of a pin that they are doing in great big
environment around them. Around the mine itself, the mine when you look at the whole Kivalliq area, the
mine site is very small, and the area around it, what they -- what they believe they are monitoring.
43
4.
ECOSYSTEMIC EFFECTS
According to its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated
(AREVA) designed its approach in the assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects to meet
the applicable regulatory requirements while focusing the assessment on the matters of greatest
environmental, social, cultural, economic and scientific importance. This approach was designed to
consider the iterative nature of environmental assessment and integrated engineering design and
mitigation and monitoring plans for the life of the Kiggavik Project, while also including Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit at each step. The following steps were used in the analysis:
 Scoping;
 Assessment of Project-related environmental effects;
 Evaluation of cumulative environmental effects;
 Determination of significance;
 Monitoring; and
 Summary.
To complete its assessment, AREVA focused on valued components (VCs) or broad aspects of the
biophysical or socio-economic environments which if altered by the Project would be of concern to
regulators, Inuit, resource managers, scientists, and public stakeholders. Specific valued environmental
components (VECs) or valued socio-economic components (VSECs) were selected for assessment based
on the following criteria:
 Do they represent a broad environmental, ecological or human environment component that
may be altered by the Project?
 Are they vulnerable to the environmental effects of the Project and other activities in the
region?
 Have they been identified as important issues of concerns to Inuit or other stakeholders, or
in other effects assessments in the region?
 Were they identified by the NIRB, Inuit Organizations or departments within the territorial or
federal government?18
Where VCs had various sub-components that might interact in different manners with the Project,
AREVA focused on assessing the potential environmental effects on individual Key Indicators (KIs).
AREVA defined KIs as species, species groups, resources or ecosystem functions that represented
components of the broader VCs, and for which there was sufficient information to assess the potential
residual environmental effects and cumulative effects of the Project. These KIs, along with one or
more measurable parameters, were compiled into a matrix in the scoping section for each discipline.
AREVA further considered potential cumulative environmental effects if the following criteria were
met for the residual Project effect under consideration:
18
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 52.
44
 The Project would result in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual
environmental effect on a component of the biophysical or socio-economic environment;
 The Project-specific residual environmental effect on the component would likely act in a
cumulative fashion with the environmental effects of other past or future projects or
activities that are likely to occur (i.e., is there overlap of environmental effects?); and
 There is a reasonable expectation that the Project’s contribution to cumulative
environmental effects would be substantive, measurable or discernible such as that it would
affect the viability or sustainability of the resource.
AREVA defined spatial and temporal boundaries and conducted cumulative effects using four different
cases: base case, Project case, future case and future potential case. The effects analysis was
summarized using a numerical and/or qualitative description of direction, magnitude, geographic
extent, frequency, duration and reversibility and ecological or socio-economic context. AREVA
identified threshold criteria or standards for its use in determining the significance of environmental
effects for each VC or KI. Potential cumulative environmental effects were only assessed by the
Proponent if the Project would result in measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual
environmental effects on a biophysical or socio-economic component, and whether the potential
Project-specific residual environmental effect on the component would likely act in a cumulative fashion
with the environmental effects of other past, current or future projects or activities that are likely to
occur.
Potential changes in a measureable parameter or VC resulting from the Project or environmental effects
was then evaluated against these standards or thresholds and environmental effects and rated as either
significant or not significant. An environmental effect was considered significant if it adversely affected
the long-term viability of the VC/KI and a residual effect was not significant if the effect caused a change
that was within the range of natural variability if it did not affect the integrity of the VC/KI in a
measureable or meaningful way.
In its determination of significance, AREVA included the likelihood that a residual environmental effect
on a VC would occur and assigned a level of scientific uncertainty. AREVA further determined the
confidence of the prediction with respect to the characterization of environmental effects, the expected
success of Project design features, mitigation measures, and environmental protection measures in
effectively reducing the environmental effect.
After analysis of potential residual Project environmental effects, AREVA determined the need for
monitoring programs, either by compliance or follow-up environmental monitoring. AREVA’s goal in the
design of environmental monitoring programs was to:
 verify predictions of environmental effects;
 determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, environmental protection measures or
benefits agreements in order to modify or implement new measures where required;
 support the implementation of adaptive management measures to address previously
unanticipated adverse environmental effects; and
 support environmental management systems used to manage the environmental effects of
projects.
45
4.1
Air Quality
4.1.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA collected air quality data at the Project site, and along with existing literature established
baseline conditions for air quality. The data was used to assess the potential direct and indirect effects
of the Project, and the results along with conclusions were described in Volume 4 Part 1 of the FEIS.
Baseline information was provided in Appendix 4B and a Draft Air Quality Monitoring and Mitigation
Plan was provided in Appendix 4C. AREVA provided a description in the FEIS of how Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit was included in its assessment of air quality in Volume 4 Part 1.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for its effects assessment on air
quality:

Project footprint — The area of direct physical disturbance by the Project including the area of
the Kiggavik and Sissons mine sites, the interconnected Kiggavik-Sissons haul road (collectively
referred to as the Mine Development Area), the Baker Lake dock and storage facility, and both
proposed access road(s) (winter access road and all-season access road) between Baker Lake
and the Kiggavik site.

Local Assessment Area (LAA) – Defined as approximately 25 kilometres squared (km2) centered
over the mine development area and a 5 km2 area over the Baker Lake Dock and Storage
Facility where measureable effects from the project specific activities may occur.

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) — Encompasses an area that extends beyond the LAA to a
117 km by 65 km area from Samarook Lake to just east of Whitehills Lake, and included the
mining areas, both the Kiggavik-Sissons haul road and the Baker Lake-Kiggavik access road
options, as well as the community of Baker Lake.
AREVA defined the temporal boundary for the effects assessment for air quality to be based on timing
and duration of potential effects from activities associated with the Project and included maximum
construction, maximum operation and phased operation for a total of 15 years. AREVA assumed that
operational activities would be condensed into a shorter time period causing emissions to be greater
than if they were calculated over a longer period of time (which would be the expected total life span
of the Project of 25 years). The significance of a potential residual effect to air quality was assessed
using territorial or federal ambient air quality criteria.
AREVA used CALPUFF/CALMET air dispersion modelling to capture potential effects of the Project over
its anticipated lifetime. A residual effect was defined within the FEIS as any predicted Constituents of
Potential Concern (COPC) concentration that was in excess of a chosen ambient air quality
criterion/indicator threshold. AREVA predicted that the Project could impact air quality during
construction, operations (dust, uranium and metals, gaseous COPC, radionuclides and Project
infrastructure), final closure as well as post-closure. AREVA concluded that all predicted residual
effects resulting from the Project would not be significant as the effects were not expected to extend
more than 4 km beyond the Project footprint and would only occur a few times a year. Furthermore,
AREVA predicted that the Project’s effects on air quality would not overlap with future projects,
except at the dock and storage facility in Baker Lake where it was expected that both AREVA’s
proposed facility and Agnico Eagle Mines Limited’s existing facility would produce nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) emissions and overlap spatially and temporally.
46
AREVA noted that all predicted residual effects to air quality resulting from the Project were not
expected to extend beyond the LAA and would be reversible. Mitigation measures were proposed by
AREVA through its design of the Project and associated environmental management, as outlined
within the Draft Air Quality Monitoring Plan, which were also expected to reduce the potential for
cumulative effects to air quality (see Section 6.4: Cumulative Effects).
4.1.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Mitigation Plans
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIA) commented in a joint
Final Written Submission that the mitigation and management discussions for air quality in AREVA’s
FEIS were unclear on the specific mitigation measures being proposed, with a corresponding lack of
specific detail carried into the associated management plans. NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA
provide a more comprehensive and detailed list of mitigation measures and commitments for the
Kiggavik Project in addition to a detailed Emission Best Management Plan. AREVA responded by
noting that it could incorporate the recommended plan in the detailed design phase for the Project
(i.e., during licensing).
NTI/KIA noted within their Final Written Submission that the design of the air quality sampling
program may have missed two significant air emission sources for the proposed stationary source
monitoring program: the power generators, and the underground mine ventilation. NTI/KIA provided
recommendations to address this issue and, during the Final Hearing, the KIA noted its comments
were intended to ensure that AREVA’s impact assessment was accurate. During the Final Hearing the
KIA also requested that AREVA consider additional dustfall monitoring to the northeast of the Kiggavik
site and northwest of the Sissons site and provide additional detail on its proposed monitoring of
emissions from the underground shaft. AREVA made a commitment during the Final Hearing to add
additional dustfall jars at the two sites as requested.19
During the Final Hearing, Environment Canada (EC) raised similar concerns as NTI/KIA regarding
additional dustfall monitoring stations, specifically to fill areas where there were perceived gaps in
coverage. EC further stressed its concern with the Draft Air Quality Monitoring Plan, specifically
regarding the geographic coverage and frequency of some of the proposed monitoring. In the
response to final written submissions and during the Final Hearing, AREVA noted that it was of the
opinion that it had put forward a comprehensive monitoring plan with a strong design and that as a
draft, it would continue to be finalized.20 The Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Management Board (BQCMB)
also noted similar concern and indicated that the dust station be moved farther away from the mine
site in addition to adding more stations.21 In its response to final written submissions, AREVA
commented that, while it agreed with the second and seventh recommendation made by NTI/KIA, and
agreed in principle with the third and fourth recommendations, emission limits would be provided as
part of the final design to be evaluated against the emission estimates in the air quality assessment.
19
J. Kirkaldy, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 3, p. 100, lines 5-8.
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 142, lines 16-18.
21
E. Evans, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 1131, lines 1-7.
20
47
AREVA noted that maintenance of the equipment would ensure generator units meet emissions limits,
and therefore no source testing should be required. In addition, any emissions from ventilation of the
underground mine would be designed to ensure that concentrations of contaminants of potential
concern would meet required occupational health exposure limits. With regards to blasting, AREVA
noted that the Kiggavik Project as proposed would be a minimal contribution to NOx levels. AREVA
further detailed that annual reporting of measured air quality results would be required for the
operation to meet Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards. In addition, AREVA indicated that
it anticipated that the finalization of the monitoring plan could be coordinated through the EC-CNSC
Memorandum of Understanding.22
During the Final Hearing, AREVA noted that it would be undertaking occupational health monitoring
and that the data collected in conjunction with the ventilation rates would be used to confirm that the
emissions from the underground mine are within acceptable levels. AREVA further agreed that in
advance of the mine development, it could undertake some preliminary estimates with occupational
health criteria to confirm the emissions that might be released from the underground would be
acceptable.23 However, ventilation from the underground mine was not considered to be a major
source of atmospheric emissions in AREVA’s assessment; modelling used very conservative numbers,
finding that with typical predicted exposure timeframes signage would not be necessary.
NTI/KIA also provided commentary within their final written submission regarding uranium and
radionuclides as contaminants of concern, noting that the FEIS had not included any assessment of
uncertainty or specific sources of these contaminants. NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA undertake
an assessment of uranium and radionuclides and report annually with the emissions and monitoring
results. In its response to the final written submissions, AREVA noted that it had undertaken a
comprehensive, specific assessment of uranium and radionuclides, which were reported in the FEIS
and were based on conservative assumptions in areas of uncertainty. Furthermore, AREVA indicated
that the Draft Air Quality Monitoring Plan addressed the concerns and recommendations indicated by
NTI/KIA, and included reporting requirements as outlined in Appendix 2T.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) noted in its final written submission that it expected
AREVA to consider the requirements of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard for
Performance Testing of Nuclear Air-Cleaning Systems at Nuclear Facilities. AREVA responded that it
would consider the aforementioned CSA standard.24 Further, the CNSC indicated that it expected
AREVA to adopt Environment Canada’s Best Practices for the Reduction of Air Emissions from
Construction and Demolition Activities for the implementation of mitigations measures for the
Kiggavik Project; AREVA responded that it agreed and would do so.24
During the Final Hearing, EC noted that AREVA predicted exceedances of NO2 at the Baker Lake dock
and storage facilities; however AREVA was proposing to conduct related monitoring during one
shipping season only. EC requested clarification on the monitoring program and noted its concern
22
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-113.
J. Kirkaldy, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 132, lines 15-21.
24
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 11.
23
48
regarding the one year duration of the proposed monitoring program, suggesting instead that a five
year program be used to ensure no impacts are observed.25
Dust
In their final written submission, NTI/KIA commented that the results of modelling presented in the
FEIS had indicated that concentrations of NO2 and fine particulate levels near the Project would
exceed the health-based criteria AREVA had chosen for the assessment. NTI/KIA recommended that
AREVA identify to the public areas to avoid around the Project for persons that could be sensitive to
elevated air quality concentrations of NO2 and fine particulates. Similar concerns were shared by EC
within its final written submission, with EC indicating that there could be project-related exceedances
of ambient air quality standards for total suspended particulate, particulate matter less than 10
microns (PM10), fine particulate less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) nitric dioxide (NO2) and uranium
concentrates. While noting it was generally supportive of AREVA’s Draft Air Quality Monitoring Plan
(AQMP), EC raised concerns with the geographic coverage and frequency of some of the proposed
monitoring and recommended that AREVA finalize the AQMP in consultation with EC. AREVA
responded that fine particulate matter criteria was based on a 24-hour averaging period, as the
likelihood that an individual would spend 24 hours in the area of potential exceedance was extremely
low and, as such, signage in the area would be unwarranted. During the Final Hearing, AREVA also
noted that its modelling used very conservative numbers with typical exposure timeframes, further
rendering the requested signage unnecessary.26,27
NTI/KIA’s Final Written Submission also noted AREVA’s proposed strategy to eliminate dust from the
crushed ore stockpiles by locating crushers to directly discharge into the grinding circuit; however
more detail was requested regarding the operational stability associated with the crusher directly
discharging into the grinding circuit and whether it would create more or less dust than more
traditional practices. AREVA responded by confirming it had considered the issue of dust in the
crushing phase, even when the mill could be non-operational due to maintenance or weather issues.
It was explained that the mill design included Pachucas (vertical tanks for mixing pulp with the air) for
ground ore storage, and the crushing and grinding circuits would be located within a heated building.
Areas of high dust would be isolated, the area negatively ventilated, and all dust laden exhaust air
would be scrubbed. Additionally, radiation and radiation dust would be monitored on a regular basis
throughout the mill and design, fabrication and operation of equipment would comply with national,
territorial and local codes, standards, regulations and specifications applicable to the plant site.28
In their final written submission, NTI/KIA expressed concerned about the potential loss of dust from
the site during windy periods, and in particular metals and radionuclide-enriched dust from the ore
stockpiles, noting that AREVA had indicated that it no longer considered covering the ore. NTI/KIA
noted that AREVA had proposed several mitigation measures; however, they indicated that only water
25
D. Fox, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p.144, lines 1023.
26
B. Armstrong, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 729-730, lines 16-25
and 1-6.
27
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 138, lines 2-26.
28
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-318 and 2-319.
49
suppression appeared to be a reliable method and recommended this method of mitigation be
actively pursued.
NTI/KIA further indicated it was unclear how monitoring results would be compared to modelling
predictions when the dust modelling had not included results for ore storage piles. Dust deposition
could occur at distances as much as 14 kilometres (km) from the Project and would include dust from
the ore storage piles and associated metals, yet AREVA had not accounted for the associated
accumulation in its effects assessment. NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA’s monitoring and adaptive
management plan be rigorous and address such uncertainties in the assessment.29
Within its final written submission and during the Final Hearing, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq
Management Board (BQCMB commented that radioactivity issues were generally an item of significant
concern for communities and, as such, monitoring should be re-designed to take a conservative
approach to ensure that sample sites sample gradients for atmospheric transfer of metals. The
BQCMB noted that, even though AREVA indicated that dust from uranium is heavy and would not be
dispersed far from site, dust from other sources remained a significant concern to the general public.
Further, BQCMB commented that there is not
…enough transfer of experience with monitoring and mitigation from uranium mines in
Saskatchewan, particularly for dust control of roads and use of aboriginal knowledge…need
more monitoring on dust and what’s happening on dust.”30
Within its response to the final written submission provided by the BQCMB, AREVA noted that there
was a study design within its Draft Air Quality Monitoring Plan for a before-after reference-exposure
gradient, and that the lichen and vegetation monitoring components of the revised plan would
address uptake via caribou diet.
During the Final Hearing, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson (Ms. Hughson) also asked for further explanation of
the potential for long range transport of air pollutants. AREVA discussed its holistic approach to
assessing interactions between the atmosphere, the land, and the animals on the land.
During the Final Hearing, in response to a request from the NIRB staff for clarification on the height of
stockpiles used for air dispersion models, AREVA confirmed that its calculations had incorporated the
maximum height of stockpiles for analysis, which were 10 metres (m) in height for the ore pile and 50
m in height for the clean rock pile.31
The NIRB staff further requested that AREVA explain whether the potential effects of radionuclides or
radioactive dust could bio-accumulate in aquatic species, and whether this might pose a risk for the
aquatic ecosystem with the project area.32 AREVA noted that the assessment including the models
presented in the final environmental impact statement considered all radionuclides. AREVA further
noted that total exposure to radioactivity to aquatic biota, wildlife, and humans consuming fish and
29
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission Appendix 1, January
26, 2015, pp. 3-5.
30
E. Evans, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript, March 12,
2015, pp. 1998-2006.
31
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 197, lines 11-16.
32
R. Barry, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, p. 333, lines 14-17.
50
caribou were assessed and it was found that the predicted exposure were below the limits of concern
that have been established.33
Through the course of the Final Hearing, several community members raised concerns regarding dust
dispersion and the resultant effects on the receiving environment (see Table 2). A community
member from Whale Cove noted experience with methane issuing from the ground when digging into
the land; the community member further questioned whether AREVA was fully aware of such
dangers.34 A community member from Chesterfield Inlet also raised concern regarding dust from
blasting and the potential for impacts to fish.35 Another community member from Baker Lake noted
concern regarding dust entering into the water system and requested clarification if this would be
monitored.
What if the dust starts getting into that water? Is there going to be monitoring of dust flying
around, the constant monitoring? Because some of the runoffs will eventually end up maybe
here.36
Another community member from Baker Lake noted concern from dust regarding drying meat:
I want to ensure that past the airport where I make my dry meat, that that is not impacted as
well by pollution and dust, thank you, if there's going to be a winter road built by there.37
A community member from Arviat raised concerns regarding uranium dust and dispersion from the
proposed project:
…and everything is being absorbed by whatever is around it, and this tells me that, not only in
wintertime the danger of uranium dust will be flying around, because of a blizzard, but at the
same time, in summertime when the heat and cold begin to dance around, they are going to
create kind of small whirlpools that we every summer that picks up -- we could see some flying
dust going up and -- wherever they go, and it will be a similar story…38
The community member further noted that the winds can get quite extreme within the Project area
during both the winter and summer months, with prevailing wind direction from the north-northwest
during the winter and from the south during the summer.39
Another community member from Arviat expressed concern with potential dust, noting:
33
S. Fernandes, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 333-334, lines 18-26
and 1-16.
34
E. Voisey, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1506, lines 1-10.
35
L. Mimialik, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1985, lines
18-21.
36
D. Ovyuk, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1660, lines 15-18.
37
L. T. Ayaga, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p.2207,
lines 19-22.
38
P. Alareak, Arviat, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1429, lines 10-18.
39
P. Alareak, Arviat, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1539, lines 1-23.
51
…how is the dust going to be collected and how far the vicinity would be under detector for the
dust -- dust. Because up here, the wind gets very strong, and the dust may travel miles and
miles. This may -- this particular thing might be a good thing to try and find out how far and
what effect it may have when it gets in the air. 40
A community member from Chesterfield Inlet also noted concern with dust from the proposed
road(s), adequacy of proposed controls for mitigation, and monitoring station placement, and
suggested monitoring near the community of Chesterfield Inlet for radiation and dust (in addition to
Baker Lake).41 Further clarification was also requested regarding the monitoring protocol for dust
including the range of sampling stations. AREVA provided clarification indicating that the range of
dust disposal was determined using modelling predictions. Another community member from Baker
Lake noted impacts observed on caribou and caribou caches as a result of the all-weather access road
associated with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project.42
During the Final Hearing, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita) requested clarification for why
AREVA had proposed more than one road option. Makita noted that although AREVA had discussed
during the Final Hearing its observations of the development and use of the all-weather access road
associated with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project, AREVA had not made a decision on the road
option for its Project. Makita also noted that it “believe[s] that this indecisiveness of not choosing a
road avoids many questions that we could have relating to dust and noise and atmosphere…which is
unacceptable at this point in the hearing”.43 In response, AREVA indicated its preference to build the
proposed winter access road, but that it had continued to evaluate the impacts of an all-season access
road option due to its possible necessity should the proposed winter access road option not meet the
needs of the Project.
During the Final Hearing, Ms. Hughson inquired as to whether AREVA had used data from its other
mine operations for the air quality modelling for the Kiggavik Project, noting that the Project would be
located within a different environment in the Arctic. AREVA responded that it had used experiences
from its McClean Lake operation in particular and incorporated many lessons learned into the Kiggavik
proposal.44 During her presentation, Ms. Hughson showed a photo of the Thelon River taken from
Baker Lake on August 2013 to depict the effects of the strong winds (noted to be up to 41 km/hour) on
the sand and indicated that the photo reflects the potential for radioactive dust or contaminants to be
blown around from the proposed mine. Ms. Hughson asked whether there would work stoppage
implemented for certain wind speeds.45
40
D. Aglukark, Arviat, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1433, lines 7-13.
L. Mimialik, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1513, lines
2-9.
42
D. Owinjayak, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2014, p. 2241, lines 512.
43
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, pp.
151-152, lines 5-11 and 4-7.
44
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, p. 156, lines 3-14.
45
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, pp. 1381-1391, lines
15-12 and 1-5; March 13, 2015, p. 2105, lines 8-18.
41
52
A community member from Chesterfield Inlet noted concern that radon would be dangerous for
hunters and wildlife, with the potential for the radon to be dispersed into the atmosphere from the
pit. The member further noted that due to the strong windy conditions in Baker Lake, the air travels
from Baker Lake to Chesterfield Inlet.46 Another community member from Baker Lake noted concerns
with air quality and radon emissions being dispersed into the air and into the environment.47
The Board requested clarification from AREVA on their dustfall monitoring program over Judge Sissons
Lake during the winter, noting that winds can reach up to 60 to 80-km during the winter months with
the potential of dust fall on the lake. The Board further requested information on the potential for
accumulation of total suspended particulates such as uranium and the length of time it would take to
degrade.48 AREVA noted the dustfall monitoring would be conducted year round. AREVA further
noted that it had conducted an assessment within the Pointer Lake watershed with regards to dust
and long distance transport into waterbodies, and found the concentrations to be small (low) within
the watershed.49
The Board requested clarification on who would be conducting the monitoring at the Kiggavik Project.
AREVA noted that onsite staff would complete the majority of the monitoring and experts would be
consulted when needed.
The Board requested further clarification on whether AREVA considered including cumulative effects
as part of the air quality effects assessment and human health assessment.50 AREVA noted that
criteria have been developed to consider the long-term exposure for air contaminants. AREVA further
noted that for dispersion of dust, it has looked at the accumulation, the build-up, of dust on lichen
over the life of mine.51
The Board further requested clarification from the CNSC on its jurisdiction and area of influence,
noting that fine particles of dust such as uranium could travel long distances. The CNSC provided
clarification on their regulatory oversight noting that issues related to road transport, barges, air
disturbance of caribou are not directly within their mandate.52
CALPUFF Modelling
During the Final Hearing, NTI/KIA requested clarification from AREVA regarding when the air quality
and acoustic baseline and impact assessment would be reviewed and/or updated to stay current and
valid after the possible approval of the Project and issuance of a project certificate if the start-up is
46
L. Mimialik, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1436, lines
2-21.
47
W. Owinjayak, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2014, p. 2209, lines 5-9.
48
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 168-169, lines 14-16 and
18-24.
49
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 170, lines 1-22.
50
P. Kadlun, Nunavut Impact Review Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp.
617-618, lines 17-26 and 1-8..
51
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 618-619, lines 10-26
and 1-4.
52
M. McKee, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1046, lines 3-20.
53
delayed.53 In response, AREVA noted that it expected “that in advance of the project, regardless of
whether it happened in five or ten years, that the assumptions that were selected for the modelling
and methodology would be confirmed with current practices as things do change over time”. 54 AREVA
did not suggest a full assessment would be necessary, indicating instead that an analysis to confirm
that the current FEIS findings would hold.
The KIA went on to request additional clarification regarding which agency would be responsible for
enforcement of any air quality, emissions, and stack testing for the Project. In response, the
Government of Nunavut (GN) noted that the Environmental Protection Act of Nunavut gives it
jurisdiction to manage emissions and related items, however, the GN had yet to develop the
respective regulations and usually defers to the federal agencies for this issue.55
Waste Incineration
Within its final written submission, EC commented on AREVA’s proposed incineration of sewage
sludge, noting that incineration can be an environmentally sound method of disposing of camp waste
if appropriate technologies and operating practices are used, however studies have linked northern
incineration to adverse impacts to water quality, lake sediments, fish and wildlife. EC noted that
emissions from sewage sludge incinerations must be reported to the National Pollutant Release
Inventory under the authority of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 and suggested that
AREVA use an incinerator with the required design specifications to burn sludge, obtain a letter from
the manufacturer, and recommended that incinerator emissions be stack tested when burning sewage
sludge to ensure that the Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans emissions are achieved.
AREVA responded that its preferred disposal option for solid sewage involved disposing of it within a
dedicated sewage disposal area for composting, for eventual soil amendment for re-vegetation.
AREVA also agreed to complete stack testing for all incinerators and to further consider composting
food waste from the Project.56 During the Final Hearing, EC requested that incineration of sewage be
removed from the waste management plan, prompting AREVA to note that despite the preferred
method being composting, further detailed design would include alternatives such as incineration.57
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake requested additional clarification on how animals
would be deterred from reaching the areas experiencing higher emissions; AREVA responded that sites
had been assessed for air emissions based on human concerns such as asthma, and that there was no
comparable context for animals that could be used.
The Board questioned AREVA on the safety of transporting ore between the Sissons and Kiggavik site
using open-top trucks with no cover, noting that “it would be ideal if you had a tarp of some kind to
cover them, or a covering. It's a long kilometres. So it's -- it's -- it's okay to ship -- or transport them
exposed?”58 AREVA noted their experience in Saskatchewan indicating that to date AREVA had no
53
T. van der Vooren, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2014, p.
139, lines 6-13.
54
J. Kirkaldy, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p.139, lines 16-24.
55
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p.786,
lines 16-26.
56
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-112.
57
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 148, lines 10-18.
58
G. Alikut, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1553, lines 20-23.
54
concerns with transporting the ore; however, AREVA noted that “tarping the loads is something that
we could look at. We've never had to do that to this point in -- in Saskatchewan, but it's, again, part of
our continuous improvement, adaptive management. If there appears to be a need to tarp or put
covers on the loads themselves, that was something we could consider for the longer hauls.”59
4.1.3 Views of the Board
The Board notes that during the Final Hearing several parties raised concerns regarding the lack of
specific mitigation measures proposed by AREVA, inadequate development of monitoring plans,
limited geographic extent of monitoring sites, limited length of monitoring period(s), insufficient
recognition of uncertainty and assessment of specific sources of contaminants from the proposed
project. The Board notes that AREVA has committed to additional dustfall monitoring stations and to
further update and finalize its Draft Air Quality Monitoring Plan during the licensing phase for the
Project, if approved.
At the Final Hearing, the Board requested clarification on where dustfall collectors would be located
throughout the region and, more specifically, whether they would be located on both sides of the
proposed mine roads. AREVA reviewed its placement map and indicated the locations of the dustfall
collectors. The Board further noted that no dustfall monitoring had been proposed over Judge Sissons
Lake during the winter months. AREVA confirmed the limitation, indicating that the monitoring
station sites had been selected to allow for year round sampling. With known high wind speeds during
the winter months, the Board also questioned whether AREVA had identified or assessed possible
accumulation of total suspended particulates, such as uranium, into Judge Sissons Lake, and/or
determined how long particles could take to degrade if they did enter the lake. AREVA noted that the
FEIS described its study of the Pointer Lake watershed, which is comparable to Judge Sissons Lake,
predicting only very small concentrations.
As noted in the preceding section, NTI/KIA commented on the lack of information in the FEIS on dust
dispersion from the proposed type 3 rock piles. The Board acknowledges that AREVA proposed to
dispose of the type 3 mine rock at the end of mining in the Main Zone pit or Andrew Lake. However,
the Board recognizes and shares the public concerns expressed during the Final Hearing regarding dust
dispersion from proposed project activities and the geographic extent of dispersal.
The Board would like to highlight the importance of Inuit Qaujimaningit related to the air quality
environment, as the Board believes that Inuit Qaujimaningit does not align with AREVA’s assertions
that dust dispersion from the mine sites would be so limited in geographical extent as presented
within the FEIS. The monitoring program proposed by AREVA was based on the assumption that dust
from the mine sites would not fall far from the site, with monitoring sites proposed at a very limited
geographic extent from these sites only. Given the statements and questions provided during the
community roundtable, the NIRB is concerned that there could be a loss of public confidence in the
safety of caribou meat for consumption owing to dispersion of dust from the proposed mine sites.
Avoidance might also arise in relation to fish, if Inuit have cause to believe that dust dispersion may be
entering watercourses and from there the food-chain. The Board reiterates that further integration of
59
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1553-1554, lines 2426 and 1-15.
55
Inuit Qaujimaningit is necessary with regards to the Proponent’s assessment of Project effects on air
quality.
4.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit air quality impacts having regard to information presented in any future project
proposal. The Board concludes that public concerns respecting the potential for dust dispersal can be
addressed through enhanced monitoring, with regular public reporting in plain language and Inuktitut
of the dispersal monitoring results, and promotion of adaptive management techniques should
monitoring reveal human avoidance behaviours or other concerns respecting the dispersal of
radioactive dust in arctic conditions. In the Board’s view, enhanced monitoring and regular public
reporting, supported by an adaptive management regime, can be effective mechanisms to address
public concerns respecting dust dispersal provided they recognize the Inuit Qaujimaningit views
regarding the characteristics and behaviour of wind in the Kivalliq region and its implications for
human avoidance behaviours.
4.2
Climate (including Climate Change) and Meteorology
4.2.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA described climate (including climate change) and meteorology in Volume 1 Section 7.2.1,
Volume 4 Part 1, and Appendix 4A Climate Baseline of its FEIS. AREVA assessed climate change in
Volume 1 Section 7.2.2 and Volume 4 Section 7.0 of the FEIS and generally focused on greenhouse
gases (GHGs) which collectively include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O),
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), water vapour, ozone (O3) and chlorofluorocarbons. The analysis of the
GHGs was included in AREVA’s Air Dispersion Assessment.
AREVA identified the same three spatial assessment boundaries for climate and meteorology as for air
quality (see Section 4.1: Air Quality).
AREVA defined the temporal boundary for the effects assessment for climate change to be based on
timing and duration of potential effects from Project activities and included maximum construction,
maximum operation and phased operation for a total of 15 years. AREVA assumed that operational
activities would be condensed into a shorter time period causing emissions to be greater than if they
were calculated over a longer time period (which would be the expected total life span of the Project
of 25 years). AREVA further noted that with respect to assessing the potential effects to climate
change from the Project, the operational year with the highest anticipated greenhouse gas emissions
was selected.
AREVA used a mass balance approach to estimate emissions of CO2-equivalent from all Project related
activities which would require the use of diesel fuel. Estimates of diesel fuel usage were multiplied by
the emission factors to estimate emissions of GHGs and then further apply these numbers to the
climate change assessment effects mechanisms and linkages. AREVA identified Project activities that
could result in increased concentration of GHGs to include:

Heavy-duty equipment operation at both the Mine site and at the Dock and Storage Facility;
56

Vehicular transport along on-site roads, haul roads and access road;

Power generation at the Mine site; and

Marine vessels.
AREVA indicated there were no specific climate thresholds or criteria that define whether an effect is
expected to occur and, therefore, AREVA did not assess the presence of a residual effect or potential
significance in this area. AREVA proposed design aspects, operational considerations and other
mitigation measures into its project plans which were intended to minimize potential Projectassociated emissions and/or the potential effect of Project-related emissions.
4.2.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIA) commented in a joint final
written submission that AREVA had not proposed a greenhouse gas (GHG) management and reduction
plan and instead outlined generic best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions
without specifying actual reductions or targets for reductions. NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA
provide an adaptive management plan for GHG management and reductions which would address
annual estimates of GHG emissions for all stages of mine life and conduct an annual review of
approaches taken. AREVA responded that it agreed in principle, and that its integrated management
system was consistent with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 14001,
which it would implement for the Project. Furthermore, AREVA indicated that it would consider
adoption of the ISO Standard 50001, Energy Management Systems, to facilitate improvement of the
Project’s energy performance.60 During the Final Hearing, the KIA noted that there was a
…large body of traditional knowledge on climate change that doesn't seem to be fully
integrated in the EIS. To what extent did you incorporate this knowledge into your analysis of
potential effects? Assuming climate-change effects continue, how will this gap be filled, in
seeing that -- the possible delay in the project?61
AREVA responded by indicating that “IQ supports that there is climate change and that people in the
north have observed these changes, and so that is consistent with our inclusion of climate-change
scenarios and including the consideration of climate change in each of the discipline effects
assessments.”62 AREVA further noted that for future consideration of climate change, they are open
to learning from others and could include climate-change discussions as part of the Inuit Qaujimaningit
workshops.
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) noted
that AREVA mentioned experience with projects in other provinces and countries but indicated its
understanding that AREVA had no past experience in remote isolated areas and extreme climates;
60
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-361.
J. Hart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 483, lines
9-15.
62
D. Martens, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 483, lines 16-21.
61
57
…Kiggavik will be first Nunavut project where you have no past experience in the extreme
climate, in the very remote, isolated land. My question is, in which of your past projects do you
think Kiggavik is similar?63
The Baker Lake HTO requested that AREVA provide an example of past projects that would be more
similar to the proposed Kiggavik Project to allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the
potential impacts of the Project in this area.64 Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, Paula Kigjugalik
Hughson and the Board echoed similar concerns with developing a uranium mine at the proposed
latitude and climate.65,66,67
During its final presentation at the Final Hearing, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management
Board noted that an extended delay in the project start-up would require a new assessment as “the
results from current assessment could be irrelevant if the project is delayed for years while changes
occur as a result of climate change and increased development across the caribou ranges.”68
Also during the Final Hearing, the Board requested that AREVA provide a projection of when the
proposed all-season access road would be considered, in the event climate factors shortened the
ability of AREVA to use the preferred winter access road option.69
4.2.3 Views of the Board
The Board is satisfied with the degree to which Proponent has accounted for the effects of the Project
on climate change and incorporated these considerations into the Project’s initial design factors to
address potential variability in site conditions that may be attributable to climate change.
The Board notes however that information and assessments involving the potential impacts climate
change could have on the Project and the effects of the Project on climate continues to evolve;
therefore, the Proponent needs to remain committed to revising and updating the current information
and predictions to account for any relative variations and changes that had not been anticipated.
Given the potential for significant, but unanticipated effects associated with climate change, the Board
urges AREVA to remain vigilant in updating its assessment of climate change and its related effects on
the Project.
63
J. Scottie, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 10, 2015, p. 1496, lines 20-24.
64
J. Scottie, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 10, 2015, pp. 1496-1497, lines 16-26 and 1-4.
65
H. Ikoe, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 14, 2015, p.
2360, lines 1-4.
66
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 237-238, lines 2526 and 1.
67
G. Alikut, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 164, lines 2-5.
68
E. Evans, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 2008, lines 4-7.
69
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 3, 2015, p. 82, lines 1-5.
58
The Board appreciates the suggestion put forth by NTI/KIA that the Proponent develops a Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (GHG) management and reduction plan that would address annual estimates of GHG for
all stages of the mine life and would be in line with its other management plans. The Board notes
AREVA’s commitment in principle to this recommendation, as presented in the Final Written
Response.70
4.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit climate, climate change, and meteorology impacts having regard to information
presented in any future project proposal. The Board anticipates that the regulatory regime of the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) in particular is
sufficiently robust, for matters within their respective jurisdictions, to address climate change impacts
which may be identified during the NIRB’s review process. Should a future Project advance to such
regulatory review and licensing, the Board encourages the CNSC in particular to integrate Inuit
Qaujimaningit into its regulatory process by endeavouring to facilitate the participation of Inuit from
affected communities within the Nunavut Settlement Area.
4.3
Noise and Vibration
4.3.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential impacts of noise and vibration within Volume 4, Part 2 of
the FEIS. Existing data from AREVA’s McClean Lake Operation in Northern Saskatchewan was used to
characterize the existing noise environment within the Kiggavik Project area. The data were used to
determine and assess the potential direct and indirect effects of the Project on noise, with the results
described in Appendix 4E and an accompanying Draft Noise Abatement Plan provided in Appendix 4F.
AREVA noted that no information was available to establish baseline vibration levels within the Project
area, however it predicted that vibration levels would not be perceptible (i.e., less than 0.1
millimetre/second).
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for its effects assessment of noise
and vibration:
70

Project footprint — The area of direct physical disturbance by the Project including the area of
the Kiggavik and Sissons mine sites, the interconnected Kiggavik-Sissons haul road (collectively
referred to as the Mine Development Area), the Baker Lake dock and storage facility and both
proposed access road(s) (winter access road and all-season access road) between Baker Lake
and the Kiggavik site.

Project footprint (LAA) — Defined as the mineral lease boundaries for the Mine Development
Area and the haul road, and the proposed winter access road, the Baker Lake dock and storage
facility.

Regional assessment area (RAA) — Defined as a 20 kilometre buffer area beyond the LAA and
includes the broader area around Baker Lake inclusive of the all-weather access road
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-361.
59
associated with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project and barge landing facility, the Baker Lake
airport, and continuing Project exploration and field study activities.
AREVA based the temporal boundaries it used in its assessment on the timing and duration of
potential effects from activities associated with the Project. The assessment encompassed all major
project phases, including construction, operation, final closure, and post closure.
AREVA noted that noise assessments can be subject to technical limitations due to a lack of scientific
information and that this was accounted for by using conservative estimation techniques and
professional judgment. An impact would be considered significant and to require mitigation if it would
result in exposure of humans to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of regulatory/guidance
criteria. If predicted noise levels were less than these criteria, no human health effect would be
anticipated and any residual effect would be assessed based on the incremental change in noise
relative to the baseline.
AREVA predicted there would be no significant human health effects at any of the sensitive receptors
due to the Project as noise levels were predicted to be below the Project effects criteria, and in many
cases below the threshold of perception. Within the community of Baker Lake, during construction,
noise levels were predicted to occur in the short term and be limited to the LAA, with effects
considered to be reversible. AREVA also predicted that if the proposed all-season access road was
required, potential residual noise effects would be limited to the LAA and considered reversible.
AREVA predicted there that no cumulative or transboundary effects would occur for noise and no
adverse human health effects would be associated with noise from the Project. AREVA further
indicated that based on its assessment, no specific noise monitoring programs were required, and
general mitigation measures were proposed for consideration to reduce construction and operation
noise at the mine site(s).
AREVA noted that vibration assessments can be subject to technical limitations due to a lack of
scientific information and that this was accounted for by using conservative estimation techniques and
professional judgment. An impact would be considered significant and to require mitigation if it would
result in exposure of humans to, or generation of, vibration in excess of regulatory/guidance criteria.
Therefore, AREVA assumed if predicted vibration levels were less than these criteria, then no adverse
human health effect would be anticipated and any residual effect would be assessed based on the
incremental change in vibration relative to the baseline.
AREVA predicted that residual vibration effects would not be significant, as it expected vibration levels
to be negligible during all phases of the Project, as overall predicted vibration levels were well below
the Project effects criteria and below the threshold of perception at all receptor locations. No
cumulative effects or transboundary effects were predicted to result from vibration associated with
the Project.
AREVA further predicted that there would be no adverse human health effects associated with
vibration from the Project and therefore no specific vibration mitigation measures were proposed in
the FEIS. AREVA instead proposed general mitigation measures that could be considered to reduce
construction and operation vibration at the source.
60
4.3.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIA) provided commentary
within their joint final written submission on the lack of cross-referencing in the noise and vibration
sections within AREVA’s FEIS. NTI/KIA noted that the literature review AREVA conducted was not
applicable to the Kiggavik Project and, as the noise baseline level of 35 dBA established for the Project
was based on literature review of other mines sites it was difficult to determine if the noise baseline
level would be representative of the Kiggavik Project area.71 NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA
complete a noise baseline study to confirm the existing baseline noise environment at noise sensitive
receptors. In its response, AREVA stated its position that previous study results in similarly isolated
geographic areas were considered a reasonable comparison to use. AREVA also explained that it had
incorporated observations from other northern projects (e.g., Meadowbank Gold Mine and McClean
Lake) into the assessment noting it had also committed to completing baseline surveys prior to
construction to confirm predictions in its Noise Abatement Plan (Appendix 4F).72
NTI/KIA also commented that the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment in the FEIS did not include
blasting details and mitigation measures related to noise and vibration, noting that they believed this
information to be necessary to determine the significance of the blast overpressure noise and
vibration and to ensure compliance with blast overpressure noise and vibration limits. NTI/KIA went
on to recommend that AREVA provide the blasting details and mitigation measures for the Project.71
AREVA responded that it had applied a conservative bounding scenario to assess potential blasting
overpressure to a maximum amount of explosives that could be used in one blast event. AREVA
indicated that one blasting event would be scheduled during daytime hours and that it had developed
a Drilling and Blasting Design (Appendix 2B) and a number of general mitigation measures relating to
vibration.73 AREVA also responded that it was committed to complying with Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO) Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters and had
included a Draft Explosives Management Plan in Appendix 2C of the FEIS.
In their final written submission, NTI/KIA also commented on the lack of predicted noise impact(s)
specifically from helicopter and aircraft noise, recommending that a detailed helicopter and aircraft
noise assessment be completed and that this assessment contain a detailed noise assessment with
noise contours plots showing the impacts to the Project. AREVA responded that it had included
airplane and helicopter noise as part of the broader noise impact assessment. Again, AREVA referred
to its Draft Noise Abatement Plan in FEIS Appendix 4F as it contained mitigation measures that had
been adopted in relation to air traffic, such as minimum flight altitudes, avoidance areas and buffer
zones around sensitive habitats.74 During the Final Hearing, the KIA noted that it had remaining
concerns that helicopter and aircraft noise had not been addressed, noting that additional studies
71
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, Appendix 6,
January 16, 2015.
72
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-333.
73
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-334.
74
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions February 13, 2015, p. 2-336.
61
specific to helicopter and aircraft noise impacts should be conducted to ensure that AREVA’s
predictions are correct.75,76
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA suggested that there might be some confusion on what
is being monitored and how exceedances would be addressed in the noise monitoring component of
the Noise Abatement Plan. Specifically, NTI/KIA noted that more than one set of noise limits were
proposed to be monitored for the operational noise from the project and suggested this be clarified
and that one set of noise limits be monitored for operational noise. NTI/KIA further indicated that it
was unclear how measuring at the Project site locations would verify noise impact at the sensitive
receptors and recommended that further discussion be undertaken on how these measurements
would verify noise impacts.77 AREVA responded that the noise monitoring program outlined in its
Draft Noise Abatement Plan consisted of several monitoring campaigns and that an initial baseline
noise monitoring campaign would be completed prior to construction. It further noted that the
Project effects criteria for noise levels used in its analysis were based on the World Health
Organization guideline. If noise levels were found to be greater than the recommended guidelines at
the Kiggavik Project, AREVA would consider abatement measures as outlined within its Noise
Abatement Plan.78
NTI/KIA further noted within its final written submission that as occupational noise was included in the
Noise Abatement Plan this could lead to confusion in the development of a noise monitoring program
for the Project. It was recommended that a separate discussion be undertaken for occupational noise
limits and noise survey requirements from noise and vibration. AREVA responded that it had included
all noise monitoring components into its Noise Abatement Plan in an effort to minimize the number of
documents that would be required for review.79
Environment Canada (EC) noted concerns regarding the impacts from marine shipping on marine and
migratory birds, including noise impacts from vessels. EC requested a commitment from AREVA to
monitor within the project areas and shipping lanes. Further discussion on EC’s concerns can be found
in Section 4.13: Birds and Bird Habitat.
In its final written submission to the NIRB, Health Canada raised concern related to AREVA’s use of
Human Perception of Sound as proposed in the FEIS, noting that it should not generally be applicable
on its own, and could be misleading to a reviewer. In response AREVA noted that its use of Human
Perception of Sound was as a general indicator of perceptibility and considered the approach to be
consistent with other noise impact assessments presented for projects in Nunavut, the Northwest
Territories and other jurisdictions.80
75
T. van der Vooren, Kitikmeot Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015,
p. 660, lines 20-26.
76
L. Manzo, Kitikmeot Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp.
1705-1706, lines 22-26 and 1-3.
77
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp.
14-16.
78
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-338.
79
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions February 13, 2015, p. 2-339.
80
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-299.
62
Within its final written submission, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake
HTO) described receiving complaints from hunters that their hunting activities were being adversely
affected by low-flying aircraft. In addition, during the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake HTO noted
concern regarding the number of flights required for the transport of yellowcake and the potential
impacts from noise on wildlife. Further clarification was requested regarding whether AREVA had
considered the effects of year-round noise from the mine site on wildlife, specifically caribou.81 In
response, AREVA indicated that these concerns were considered and included within the assessment.
The Baker Lake HTO further noted that as Agnico Eagle Mines Limited started transporting supplies to
Baker Lake, fewer seals had been observed and that the ships create ongoing noise when off-loading
the cargo between ships and that the smaller ships that come to the community also create noise. 82
The Baker Lake HTO expressed concern that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit was not incorporated within
AREVA’s assessment, especially based on comments made by community members during the Final
Hearing and the potential impacts noted from proposed noise related activities.83 The Baker Lake HTO
further noted concerns with ship noise and its effects on traditional activities and on wildlife, stating:
… -- we travel all the way to Chesterfield Inlet. There are some people that are going whaling.
When we camp out there, there are different families that travel through the narrows. The -we could hear barges approaching. They seem to travel 24 hours during the open season. We
could hear barges going upstream while we're sleeping along there, about 1 -- one starting at
1 AM. And then we see ships. I've seen ships, two ships that are anchored every summer, a
supply ship and a fuel tanker. Every summer we see them from a distance from our camps. We
can hear their engines. Before exploration started happening, we were able to see an
abundance of seals, and we were able to catch lots of fish. We used to be a good fishing spot.
But today, we don't see too many Arctic char being caught by nets. We don't see too many
seals either. You were saying that you're going to have about 31, 32 barges. Before we were
counting the other barges that are being used by the Meliadine project or Meadowbank
project. There's going to be an increase in the number of barges that are going to be going
back and forth.84
During the Final Hearing, the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN) noted its experience of noise
impacts on caribou from the mining industry in their region and that caribou avoid these areas.85 A
community member from Rankin Inlet noted similar experience in the Rankin Inlet region with the
previous nickel mine:
… that there was a mine then, a nickel mine in Rankin Inlet. There used to be abundance of
caribou in around Rankin area, even before the mine. Once the nickel mine started, was in
81
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 11, 2015, p. 1775, lines 1-13.
82
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, pp. 1252-1253, lines 5-26 and 1-2.
83
J. Scottie, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 10, 2015, p. 1640, lines 10-26.
84
D. Aksawnee, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp.
1614-1615, lines 24-26 and lines 1-20.
85
T. Enzoe, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1349,
lines 12-20.
63
operation, the caribou migration began to go further north. And after the mine was closed, the
caribou migration started to come back closer towards Rankin. 86
Clarification was requested by the NIRB staff during the hearing regarding how AREVA intended to
ensure implementation of noise mitigation measures it had committed to in relation to tugs that
would be used for the Project. AREVA noted that it would select propellers for tugs to minimize
underwater noise and would have an inspection and maintenance program in place.87 The NIRB staff
also questioned Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) whether, after receiving AREVA’s memo
“Assessment of the Proposed Winter-Road Traffic on Aquatic Wildlife" during the Final Hearing, it
supported the Proponent’s findings of no potential for adverse effects to fish species in Baker Lake
from the noise and vibration associated with the development and use of the proposed winter access
road. DFO noted that after having reviewed the document it agreed with the assessment and
conclusions provided.88
During the Final Hearing, a community member from Chesterfield Inlet noted concern regarding
potential impacts of noise on marine mammals and fish from shipping activities, and stressed that
these animals should be protected. The community member further noted that sound travels
differently in salt versus freshwater stating:
The mammals, beluga, walrus would move away from what they hear while they're swimming
in water. This lake, Baker Lake, and the saltwater are not the same. The acoustics would be
different. […]Also, the fish go up river, up to -- especially – you'll see that occur, and you've
probably seen that occur in the fall time in the month of August to September. They go through
the narrows to run upstream. The fish, from what I heard, are very clean, that are going up the
stream, especially the char, and they -- they're very squeamish, and they're very sensitive of
noise. Also, mammals have to be protected, including fish. They can be used as indicators,
because they can hear, from a long ways, and the fish go upstream and then to the lake, and
there's the cod as well. They can sense noise. They can be in deep water, or they can be in
shallower water.89
Another community member from Arviat raised concern regarding the potential impact of noise on
the aquatic environment, specifically sensitivity of fish to noise and vibration from blasting.90 AREVA
indicated that measures would be put into place to minimize the effects of blasting on fish habitat.91 A
resident of Repulse Bay (Naujaat) questioned AREVA on whether studies had been done on the effects
to fish from blasting and what the results had been.92 AREVA responded that the effects from blasting
have been reviewed and that AREVA is in discussion with DFO to minimize impacts to fish.
86
J. Kabvitok, Rankin Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p. 2148, lines 5-11.
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 426, lines 5-9.
88
G. Williston, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p.
1916, lines 1-8.
89
E. Tautu, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1586-1587,
lines 6-26 and 1-22.
90
P. Alareak, Arviat, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1951, lines 11-26.
91
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, p. 1956, lines 15-20.
92
M. Tuktudjuk, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, p. 1978, lines
20-23.
87
64
The Board requested clarification from AREVA on whether its noise and vibration model had
considered potential Project effects on the denning behaviour of predators along the proposed access
roads, specifically for grizzly bears in the area.93 AREVA indicated that its terrestrial assessment had
included consideration of noise and vibration and had predicted potential Project impacts based on
the zone of influence (ZOI), noting that for noise and vibration, it believed that there were not any
grizzly bear denning sites within the ZOI.94
The NIRB staff requested further clarification on how the ZOI was determined for potential auditory
disturbances to the various wildlife receptors from Project activities. In addition, the NIRB staff
requested clarification on the design of AREVA’s adaptive management strategy, specifically to the
identification of causes of disturbance and the differences between sources. AREVA noted that the
ZOI was based on a number of sensory disturbances and that a 14 kilometre (km) ZOI had been chosen
based on research publications, which were believed to provide a sufficiently conservative number.95
The Board further requested clarification on whether AREVA had considered pile driving associated
with construction activities and potential effects to terrestrial and marine wildlife within its noise
impact studies; AREVA confirmed the FEIS did include this consideration.96
4.3.3 Views of the Board
The Board acknowledges that several intervenors provided comments and recommendations during
the Final Hearing regarding noise and vibration in association with other topics including terrestrial
wildlife, and particularly on the marine environment from both propeller and diesel engine sources.
The Board acknowledges that AREVA has developed a Draft Noise Abatement Plan that contains
mitigation measures for potential noise impacts from the proposed Project. The Board agrees with
NTI/KIA’s recommendation that the noise assessment must be updated to include helicopter and
aircraft noise to ensure the predictions made are correct, especially regarding potential impacts from
these noise sources on wildlife.
The Board appreciates parties’ concerns regarding the limited amount of baseline information and the
requirement to conduct noise monitoring as part of marine mammal monitoring to verify model
results and cumulative effects predictions. The Board agrees that to fully understand the potential
impacts from shipping activities, a noise monitoring program should be considered as part of the
overall marine mammal and marine bird monitoring programs. The Board notes that AREVA has
committed to collect and report on observations from its own vessels as well and to seek participation
with the marine environment working group established for the Baffinland Mary River Iron Mine.97
93
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 171, lines 1-6.
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 171-172.
95
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 251-252.
96
P. Kadlun, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 339, lines 17-20.
97
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 402, lines 22-25.
94
65
Anecdotal accounts of noise from winter roads and resultant effects on wildlife and harvesting
activities appeared to differ from the predictions presented by AREVA regarding noise and vibration
effects in the FEIS. Inuit Qaujimaningit suggests noise from the use of the winter road would be
transmitted into the waters of Baker Lake, displacing fish from road locations, which could in turn
adversely affect harvesting activities by the community of Baker Lake in these areas. Future project
proposals should consider and address such potential effects through appropriate studies and
mitigation measures.
The Board further notes the potential for cumulative effects on noise levels and vibration from project
activities associated with the Baker Lake dock facility with activities associated with Agnico Eagle
Mines Limited’s Meadowbank dock facility and the community of Baker Lake’s dock facility. AREVA
stated within the FEIS that project activities are predicted to not contribute to cumulative effects for
noise levels and vibration. The Board is concerned that the potential operation of three docks at
Baker Lake could impact the community use of Baker Lake for Inuit harvesting and recreational
activities.
4.3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board heard concerns from parties regarding numerous issues in relation to potential noise
impacts and the effects to wildlife and human receptors. This is a matter which can be addressed
during any future NIRB review. The Board views further development of baseline information on
caribou and caribou behaviours as important, if not essential, to a future determination of whether or
how noise and vibration associated with mining, milling and transportation between mine sites may
affect caribou. Development of a better understanding of how winter road use may affect fish and
harvesting activities in Baker Lake is also an important matter for future consideration.
4.4
Terrestrial Environment (including
Geology and Geomorphology and Soils)
Landforms,
Surficial
4.4.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential impacts on the terrestrial environment (landforms,
geomorphology, geohazards and soil) within Volume 6 of the FEIS. Baseline information was provided
in Appendix 6A Surficial Geology and Terrain Baseline and Appendix 6B Vegetation and Soils Baseline.
AREVA included geohazards in Volume 10 Section 6.3 as it related to the environment affecting the
Project, while also including consideration of Project design into Accidents and Malfunctions Volume
10.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for the terrestrial environment:

Project footprint — The area of direct physical disturbance by the Project and a 12 metre (m)
buffer on both sides of the proposed road centre line (24 m wide) for the all-season access
road and a 6 m buffer on both sides of the winter access road.

Local assessment area (LAA) — The LAA was broken down into two different areas. The first
LAA (Mine LAA) was centred on the Kiggavik and Sissons deposits with an approximate 5 km
buffer around all proposed Project facilities. The Mine LAA for soils is approximately 450.09
square kilometre (km2). The Mine LAA boundary for terrain was adjusted to contain only the
66
area where surficial geology information existed. The second LAA (road LAA) was developed
based on the road alignments which had a 5 km wide buffer centred on the proposed road
alignments and includes the dock facility options.

Regional assessment area (RAA) — The area within which cumulative effects may potentially
occur. AREVA defined this as an area 150 km long and 70 km wide and is the same as the
boundary used for wildlife habitat RAA.
AREVA based the temporal boundaries for the terrestrial environment and assessment on the timing
and duration of potential effects from activities associated with the Project. The assessment covered
the period of all major project phases including construction, operation, final closure and post closure,
which was anticipated to last 25 years.98
AREVA noted that there were no well-defined or accepted thresholds to assess the effect of potential
changes on the terrain for the Canadian Arctic. However, AREVA noted that a qualitative approach
was adopted to assess potential Project effects on terrain based on the best available information,
previous experience with similar projects in Nunavut and other parts of the Canadian Arctic, and best
professional judgment. AREVA further noted landforms and permafrost were identified as key
components in the terrain assessment.
AREVA predicted the Project would not be expected to affect landforms outside the LAA, and the
cumulative effect of changes in terrain was not considered further in the assessment. AREVA noted
that it expects that the most effective mitigation measures for potential Project effects on landforms
would take place during more detailed Project design (i.e., licensing). AREVA also explained that
construction best practices would be used to identify and mitigate uncommon landforms, with
mitigation measures including:

consideration of the local and regional climatic conditions, and the presence and
expected changes to permafrost terrain;

avoidance of uncommon landforms like eskers, wetlands and shoreline areas, as well as
steep terrain (where possible) during the design phase of Project;

minimize cut width or disturbance through eskers, wetlands and shoreline area;

reduce the use of glaciofluvial landforms during mine infrastructure construction; and

apply best management practices and best professional judgment (e.g., planning of
proper culvert location and construction and maintenance of roads susceptible to
excessive groundwater seepage).
AREVA provided more detailed information on mitigation measures in Appendix 2N Borrow Pits and
Quarry Management Plan, Appendix 2M Road Management Plan and Appendix 5O Sediment and
Erosion Control Plan.
During the Final Hearing, AREVA noted that:
98
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 5-27.
67
Given the limited extent of surface disturbance, effects on terrain stability, permafrost, and
landforms will be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high, because
these measures are widely used and accepted practices for the construction and operation of
mining projects in the Canadian Arctic.99
AREVA identified two key issues related to soil:

deterioration of soil quality due to air emissions, including dust deposition, during all
phases of the Project; and

soil loss and deterioration caused by topsoil stripping, soil burial, erosion, admixing, and
compaction during construction activities.
AREVA determined the significance of potential Project residual effects on soil quality by the extent of
changes in chemical levels in soil in comparison to Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) soil quality guidelines. Soil quantity was described quantitatively based on the number of
hectares affected with a corresponding confidence rating as described above.
AREVA predicted that Project activities could contribute to changes in soil quality and quantity within
the LAA, although these would not be significant. The confidence in this prediction was considered
high as the effectiveness of mitigation measures related to soils were well understood and an on-site
monitor to assist with Project activities had been committed to.
AREVA indicated that based on its assessment, the main mitigation for ground disturbance is soil
salvage and storage. Further, AREVA noted erosion and compaction control measures would mitigate
potential effects on soil quantity.
The FEIS concluded that once the proposed management plans and associated mitigation measures
were in place there would be no significant adverse Project effects to the terrestrial environment.
4.4.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within its Final Written Submission, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) commented that
the baseline information provided within the FEIS was adequate, and assessment methods and criteria
for potential residual effects were appropriate, as were the qualitative approaches used for
determining significance. The CNSC concluded that it considered the methods used and assumptions
made by AREVA to be reasonable, and that no significant adverse effects to the terrestrial
environment would be expected as a result of contaminants from the proposed Kiggavik Project.
Within its final written submission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
commented on AREVA’s preliminary decommissioning plan and discussed the disposal of potentially
contaminated soils during the mine decommissioning stage. AREVA had indicated in the FEIS that
contaminated soil could be disposed of in the tailings management facility (TMF); however, AANDC
noted that there appeared to be no clear criterion for determining what would be disposed of in a
TMF or managed otherwise. AANDC recommended that AREVA establish the criteria for determining
99
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 178.
68
the ultimate disposal fate of contaminated soils. AREVA responded that the Waste Management Plan
and the Hazardous Materials Management Plan as presented in the FEIS would be in effect through all
phases of the Project and would be periodically audited to assess its effectiveness and to identify
required updates where appropriate. In regards to disposal of materials in the TMF, this method was
identified as a best practice at AREVA’s McClean Lake Operation. AREVA also noted that all
hydrocarbon contaminated soils generated by the Kiggavik Project would be remediated at a
landfarm, however during final decommissioning remaining un-remediated soil or materials would be
transferred to the TMF for disposal. AREVA had identified disposal of these types of waste into a TMF
as a passive control that represented best practice to ensure the long-term security of contaminated
waste.
AANDC requested that AREVA’s commitment during the Pre-hearing Conference to “conduct further
investigation regarding the characterization of the overburden soils at each mine area including
thickness, and stability analysis of the overburden soils as discussed in the geotechnical report” be
carried forward.100 AREVA acknowledged that the commitment already existed and expressed its
belief that since the collection of this type of data was required for the detailed design of facilities it
was captured, and that sufficient information existed for the purposes of environmental assessment.
Environment Canada (EC) also commented on landfarming in its final written submission, noting that
hydrocarbon-contaminated waste rock and similar large materials were not amenable to landfarming.
EC recommended either encapsulation or appropriate runoff control were required to limit
contaminants from becoming mobile in the environment if this material was stockpiled. As well, EC
recommended that AREVA clarify how it was going to process hydrocarbon-contaminated waste rock
or similar large materials and identify potential water quality issues and any contingency measures
discussed.101 In its response, AREVA referred to its Spill Contingency and Landfarm Management Plan
where it described the storage and remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated materials. AREVA
noted that the FEIS had included measures to limit the opportunity for contaminants to become
mobile, and that storage of hydrocarbon contaminated materials not amenable to landfarming would
be disposed of in the TMF.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) noted within its final written submission that disturbance to the
ground surface, including vegetation and organic matter, during road construction might potentially
result in impacts to the terrain including thawing and settlement of ice-rich material and changes to
drainage. Further, construction of road embankments might also have impacts on snow accumulation
and drainage. NRCan agreed that impacts to terrain and permafrost could be minimized through use
of appropriate design techniques.
In response to the Board’s questions regarding the permanence and height of the waste rock piles,
AREVA noted that the waste rock stockpiles (Type 1 and Type 2) would become permanent landforms
upon completion of the operations phase.102
100
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 5-6.
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 10-11.
102
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1548-1549.
101
69
4.4.3 Views of the Board
The Board would like to highlight the importance of Inuit Qaujimaningit related to the terrestrial
environment and acknowledges that the natural topography and value of the existing landscape, as
perceived by the people who live close to and who travel through the Project area, is of particular
importance and should inform the design of the permanent landforms which are left behind after the
completion of operations. During the Final Hearing, a community member noted that guests of their
fishing lodge “went there for the serenity and the beauty of the land.”103
4.4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit terrestrial environment impacts having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal. The Board anticipates that the CNSC’s regulatory regime is sufficiently robust
to address terrestrial environment impacts arising from matters which fall within CNSC jurisdiction
during its regulatory review process. Should a future Project advance to CNSC regulatory review, the
Board encourages the CNSC to integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into its regulatory process by
endeavouring to facilitate the participation of Inuit from affected communities of Nunavut.
4.5
Permafrost and Ground Stability
4.5.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on permafrost and ground stability
within Volume 6 of the FEIS. Supporting baseline information was provided in Appendix 5B Geology
and Hydrogeology Baseline, Appendix 5G Thermal and Water Transport Modelling of the Waste Rock
Piles and Tailings Management Facilities, and Appendix 6A Surficial Geology and Terrain Baseline and
Appendix 6B Vegetation and Soils Baseline.
AREVA identified the same three spatial assessment boundaries for permafrost as for the terrestrial
environment (see Section 4.4: Terrestrial Environment).
AREVA based the temporal boundaries for ground stability and permafrost on the timing and duration
of potential effects from activities association with the Project. The assessment covered the period of
all major project phases including construction, operation, final closure and post closure, which was
anticipated to last 25 years.
AREVA noted that there were no well-defined or accepted thresholds to assess the potential Project
effects on permafrost for the Canadian Arctic. However, AREVA noted that a qualitative approach was
adopted by AREVA to assess Project effects on terrain for the FEIS, based on the best available
information, previous experience with similar projects in the Canadian Arctic and best professional
judgment.
103
R. Kudloo, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10,
2015, p.1661, lines 23-24.
70
AREVA predicted the potential residual effect of changes in thaw depth and ground-ice conditions on
permafrost conditions and ground stability to be low in magnitude for the LAA, be site specific, long
term in nature and occur continuously; however, Project effects would be reversible. AREVA noted
that mitigation measures for reducing effects on permafrost conditions and terrain stability are well
accepted and practiced in areas of continuous permafrost in the Arctic, thus the prediction level was
rated as high.104 Further, AREVA noted that as Project residual effects on terrain were not expected to
extend beyond the LAA or overlap with any other existing or future projects or activities, no
cumulative effects on terrain were anticipated to occur. As a result, the cumulative effect of changes
in terrain was not considered further in the assessment.
AREVA proposed to establish a monitoring system for permafrost and terrain stability during all phases
of the Project based on the historical study area results and best professional judgment.
4.5.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Roads
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) noted its concern in regards to
the timing of, and rationale for, construction of an all-season access road as AREVA included a number
of conflicting statements within the FEIS of when the proposed all-season access road could be
required within the life of the Project. The GN noted that it would be important to clarify the
circumstances under which the need for an all-season access road would be anticipated. It noted that
the terrestrial data used in the FEIS are time sensitive such that the reliability of impact predictions
might become questionable if construction of the proposed all-season access road option occurs many
years after completion of the FEIS. The GN recommended that any regulatory approval for
construction of an all-season access road be time limited and conditional as follows: If the need to
construct an all-season access road arises as a result of documented climate change, a revised EIS
would be required in-order to assess whether other ecological conditions have changed which might
significantly alter conclusions regarding the effects of the Project on terrestrial wildlife.105 In its
response, AREVA provided what it considered to be a reasonable approach and information regarding
the decision process for assessing if the all season road option was required in Appendix 2M Section
3.1.2 of the FEIS. Further, AREVA committed to identifying sensitive terrain prior to licensing,
including both road options, and noted that it believed that this commitment was appropriate and
sufficient.106
Terrain/Soils
During the Final Hearing, AREVA responded to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s (NTI) request to
clarify whether permafrost and geotechnical studies would be conducted at the proposed mine site,
noting that AREVA have been considering conducting studies of permafrost in the vicinity of the mine
site. AREVA explained that the studies would be designed to ensure that the tailings area is safe
within the permafrost zone and to ensure if there is no more permafrost that the tailings area would
continue to be safe.107
104
FEIS, Volume 6, pp. 7-15 - 7-16.
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 72 - 75.
106
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-253 - 2-255.
107
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1942, lines 8-22.
105
71
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) commented in its final written submission on
permafrost in combination with geotechnical information presented within the FEIS. The CNSC noted
that some information had not been collected by AREVA and that the site-specific ground ice content
of permafrost soils in particular had not been collected and included in the FEIS nor had a thaw depth
contour map been generated for the proposed mine site. The CNSC further recognized that AREVA
had committed to collecting this data at the design phase of the Project. Within the final written
submission and at Final Hearing, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) noted similar concern regarding
limited available information on the ground conditions at the proposed development sites, noting also
that it recognized that AREVA had committed to conducting additional geotechnical investigations to
support the detailed design.
Within its final written submission to the NIRB, NRCan noted that the characterization of the current
configuration of frozen and unfrozen bodies (including taliks beneath waterbodies) is an important
consideration in the determination of groundwater flow paths and development of regional
groundwater models. NRCan had previously requested that AREVA revise its analysis and consider the
range in ground temperature for the project area to identify lakes likely to have through taliks.
However, following a review of the analyses it was unclear to NRCan whether warmer ground
conditions were considered in the revised analysis, and whether further lakes were identified as likely
to have through taliks. NRCan requested that the Proponent clarify the results of the analyses.108 In
its response, AREVA noted that the revised analyses demonstrated that using the warmer ground
surface temperature did not identify any lakes that could potentially support a talik that were not
previously identified.109
Tailings
During the Final Hearing, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson (Ms. Hughson) questioned AREVA’s conclusion that
“terrain effect on permafrost [is] not significant”. Ms. Hughson noted that the Kiggavik project
proposal would be the first uranium mine in the Canadian Arctic and that the tailings would “be
deemed safe after 80,000 years and [with] climate changes there [would] be no permafrost”, noting
her opinion that the statement of effect on permafrost within the FEIS was incorrect.110 Ms. Hughson
requested a response regarding how AREVA would deal with this hazard.111 In response, AREVA noted
that tailings would go back into the ore pits, become immobilized by freezing and would be made safe
during decommissioning. The potential migration of contaminants from the tailings in both
permafrost and no permafrost scenarios were evaluated.112
Ms. Hughson further asked how AREVA planned to contain the tailings if the permafrost does melt
with climate change, and specifically how it would “protect groundwater which will then eventually be
108
Natural Resources Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2014, p. 7.
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-453.
110
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 237-238, lines 2426 and 1-8.
111
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 598, lines 16-20.
112
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 238, lines 11-24; pp.
598-599, lines 23-26 and 1-25.
109
72
part of our drinking water and marine fish habitat. Everything is connected…”.113 In its response,
AREVA explained that the treatment process in the proposed mill would limit the solubility of the
metals and of the ease they can be transported by water. Further, the design chosen for the tailings
facility converts open pits into a facility to store tailings, which it noted is considered a best
management practice. AREVA again noted that the potential migration of contaminants from the
tailings in both permafrost and no permafrost scenarios were evaluated, noting that any contaminants
released would be at a slow rate and would not impact the surrounding environment.114
4.5.3 Views of the Board
The proposed environmental design features and mitigation measures identified by AREVA for
minimizing the potential impacts to sensitive landforms and permafrost are, in the Board’s view,
satisfactory at this stage of project development. The Board would like to emphasize, however, the
importance of AREVA’s familiarity with the site-specific conditions of the Project site in ensuring the
continued health of a sensitive northern ecosystem.
4.5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit permafrost and ground stability impacts having regard to information presented
in any future project proposal. The Board anticipates that the CNSC’s regulatory regime is sufficiently
robust to address permafrost and ground stability impacts which may be identified during its
regulatory review process. Should a future Project advance to CNSC regulatory review, the Board
encourages the CNSC to integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into its regulatory process by endeavouring to
facilitate the participation of Inuit from affected communities in Nunavut.
4.6
Geology
4.6.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on geology within Volume 6 of the FEIS.
AREVA further provided baseline information in Appendix 5B Geology and Hydrogeology Baseline and
Appendix 6A Surficial Geology and Terrain Baseline.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for the geology assessment:

Project footprint — The area of direct physical disturbance by the Project and a 12 metre (m)
buffer on both sides of the proposed road centre line (24 m wide) for the proposed all-season
access road and a 6 m buffer on both sides of the winter access road.

Local assessment area (LAA) — The LAA was broken down into two different areas. The first
LAA (Mine LAA) was centred on the Kiggavik and Sissons deposits with an approximate 5
kilometre (km) buffer around all proposed Project facilities. The Mine LAA for soils is
113
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 328-329, lines 1923 and 6-14.
114
B. Schmid, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 330, lines 7-13.
73
approximately 450.09 square km (km2). Information on surficial geology does not exist for the
southwest portion of the Mine LAA, and as a result the Mine LAA boundary for terrain was
adjusted to contain only the area where surficial geology information existed. The second LAA
(road LAA) was developed based on the road alignments which had a 5 km wide buffer
centred on the proposed road alignments and includes the dock facility options.

Regional assessment area (RAA) — The area within which cumulative effects may potentially
occur. AREVA defined this as an area 150 km long and 70 km wide and is the same as the
boundary used for wildlife habitat RAA.
AREVA based the temporal boundaries for the geology environment and assessment on the timing and
duration of potential effects from activities association with the Project. The assessment covered the
period of all major project phases including construction, operation, final closure and post closure,
which was anticipated to last 25 years.
The Kiggavik Project area has been studied geologically since the mid-1970s with more specific
structural and geological data collected from 1988 to 2010.115 AREVA conducted analysis of the
bedrock and rock found within the Project area and used this information in other reporting sections
of the FEIS, including the Appendix 2N Borrow Pits and Quarry Management Plan, Appendix 5F Mine
Rock Characterization and Management, and Appendix 5J Tailings Characterization and Management.
AREVA noted that there were no well-defined or accepted thresholds to assess the effect of changes
on the terrain stability and changes in landforms for the Canadian Arctic. However, AREVA noted that
a qualitative approach was adopted to assess potential Project effects on terrain including geology
based on the best available information, previous experience with similar projects in the Canadian
Arctic, and best professional judgment.116
4.6.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within its final written submission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
commented on the requirement of geotechnical data. AANDC noted that AREVA made a commitment
during the Pre-hearing Conference to “conduct further investigation regarding the characterization of
the overburden soils at each mine area including thickness, and stability analysis of the overburden
soils as discussed in the geotechnical report.”117 AANDC acknowledged this commitment already
existed and wanted it captured and carried forward. In its response, AREVA confirmed the
commitment already existed, that it believed the collection of this type of data was required for the
detailed design of facilities, and that it believed that sufficient information had been provided for the
purposes of environmental assessment.118
Environment Canada (EC) expressed concern in their final written submission in regards to AREVA’s
proposed Borrow Pits and Quarry Management Plan. EC noted that even with a low sulphur content
115
FEIS, Appendix 5B, p. 1-1.
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 7-6.
117
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 5-6.
118
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-4.
116
74
with no neutralization potential observed, there may still be a possibility for acid rock drainage/metal
leaching (ARD/ML) from proposed borrow pits and quarry sites. This would have implications
regarding the sampling of borrow pit locations and the geochemical evaluation of aggregate source
described in the aforementioned plan. EC recommended that the Draft Borrow Pits and Quarry
Management Plan be finalized in consultation with EC and that AREVA provide clarification in regards
to sample sites and expected volume of borrow material to be extracted from the borrow sites.119
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) provided similar commentary on this topic, noting that even
though acid rock drainage and metal leaching would not become a major concern in a continuous
permafrost setting, it still recommended that precautionary measures for managing mine waste be
undertaken throughout the mine operation.120
In responding to EC’s concern, AREVA noted that that it had conducted an ARD/ML screening
assessment of 33 rock chip samples from the potential quarry sites, and initial testing had suggested
that aggregate samples were generally non-acid generating and did not pose a significant risk with
respect to leaching of constituents of potential concern. Further information on quarry sites was
provided in Volume 2 Section 12.7, and AREVA agreed to discuss the Borrow Pits and Quarry
Management Plan with EC prior to finalization.121
NRCan further noted that deficiencies in the mine rock and tailings characterization had been
identified during the draft environmental assessment stage and AREVA’s commitment of data
collection at later stages did satisfy most concerns in this area. However, NRCan suggested AREVA
address its technical comments to ensure that the information presented was accurate and to avoid
compounding inaccuracies in any future geochemical characterization work.122 AREVA responded to
NRCan’s specific list and noted that in general, prior to mining, there would be a need for additional
definition drilling for Project facilities and mine infrastructure.123
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake asked what NRCan had meant by indicating limited
technical information had been made available by AREVA. In response, NRCan indicated that further
information regarding the proposed road alignment and subsequent studies of components such as
land features and erosion potential would be required once more detailed designs were completed.124
4.6.3 Views of the Board
The proposed environmental design features and mitigation measures identified by AREVA for
minimizing the impacts to geological features are, in the Board’s view, satisfactory for this stage of
Project development. The Board believes that the collection of additional data that AREVA committed
to providing at the regulatory phase, and the proposed follow-up and complementary initiatives
119
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 11-12.
Natural Resources Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015 pp. 18-19.
121
AREVA Response to Final Written Submission, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-118-2-119.
122
Natural Resources Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015 pp. 18-19.
123
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-462 - 2-476.
124
J. Clarke, Natural Resources Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 887,
lines 1-20.
120
75
described in the FEIS and at the Final Hearing, will be critical in ensuring that the measures proposed
are, and will continue to be, effective in achieving the desired objectives and adequately addressing
concerns related to the geological features of the Project and receiving environment.
4.6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit geology issues having regard to information presented in any future project
proposal. The Board anticipates that the CNSC’s regulatory regime is sufficiently robust to address
geology issues and impacts falling within its regulatory jurisdiction which may be identified during its
regulatory review process, specific to the development areas associated with the mine sites. For
greater certainty, the Board anticipates that the CNSC would regulate the tailings produced by the
milling process to ensure the long-term protection of the local terrestrial, aquatic and human
environments. Should a future Project advance to CNSC regulatory review, the Board encourages the
CNSC to integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into its regulatory process by endeavouring to facilitate the
participation of Inuit from affected communities in Nunavut.
4.7
Hydrology and Hydrogeology
4.7.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on surface hydrology and hydrogeology
within Volume 5 of the FEIS. Supporting baseline information, models, and plans were provided in
Appendices 5A, 5B, 5I, 5N and 5P. AREVA noted that it had selected its specific aquatic environment
components as valued environmental components because of the Project’s interaction through
various proposed project activities or physical works which included, but were not limited to: water
extraction, storage and discharge; alteration of drainage patterns and construction of diversion
channels; dewatering of the Andrew Lake; blasting in and near water bodies; release of treated
effluent; and dust deposition.
AREVA concluded that any potential Project-related residual effects to surface hydrology would occur
within the LAA and would be expected to diminish to immeasurable levels downstream at the Anigaq
River. AREVA’s Far Future Scenario results predicted no cumulative effects to surface hydrology for
the Project. AREVA predicted dewatering activities to result in depressed groundwater levels beyond
the upper limits of natural variation in the immediate vicinity of the Kiggavik open pits. The depressed
groundwater levels were predicted to be localized within the site assessment boundary.
Hydrology
AREVA identified three of the following spatial assessment boundaries for hydrology:

Project footprint — The physical area covered by the Kiggavik and Sissons Mine Sites, as well
as any associated Project infrastructure (i.e., Utility corridors, roadways, water intake and
treated water discharge structures, and airstrip).

Local assessment area (LAA) — The lakes and their tributary streams that may potentially be
directly affected by Project activities or infrastructure. This includes the main basin of Judge
Sissons Lake, as well as the Willow Lake, Lower Lake, Boulder Lake, and Caribou Lake subbasins; and the Siamese Lake watershed sub-basin that flows into the Aniguq River. In
76
addition, the site access LAA includes the corridor for the proposed winter access road from
Baker Lake to the Kiggavik mine site, as well as the Baker Lake dock site.

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) — The same as the LAA because all effects are contained
within the LAA watersheds.
AREVA’s temporal boundaries for the assessment of effects on the aquatic environment were related
to Project activities associated with the construction, operation, final closure, and post closure phases
of the Project.
AREVA noted Project activities have the potential to directly affect Judge Sissons Lake, Siamese Lake,
Mushroom Lake, Andrew Lake, Pointer Lake and their outflow streams, site access lakes, and
watersheds associated with the project footprint. AREVA predicted effects to flow rates to remain
below 3% of the baseline peak flow rates with changes in lake levels to be highest at Andrew Lake.
AREVA indicated that there would be a short-term increase of approximately 24 centimetre (cm)
during dewatering of the Andrew Lake Pit area. Changes to under-ice volumes were expected to
remain below 10% during the ice-covered season. AREVA also predicted runoff outflow would
decrease by less than 1% and 3% to drainage areas for Pointer Lake outflow and Andrew Lake,
respectively.
Monitoring of hydrological effects encompasses the recording of water levels, flow rates, and
waterbody volumes. AREVA provided mitigation measures to reduce effects on hydrology in Appendix
5I, 5N and 5P.
Hydrogeology
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for hydrogeology:

Project footprint — The physical area covered by the proposed Kiggavik and Sissons Mine sites,
as well as any associated Project infrastructure (i.e., utility corridors, roadways, water intake
and treated water discharge structures, and airstrip).

Local assessment area (LAA) — The LAA covers an area of approximately 740 square
kilometres (km2) and the key features include: the Lower Lake, Boulder Lake, Caribou Lake and
Willow Lake surface drainage basins, where most of the proposed Project development would
occur; a portion of the Kavisillik Lake and Siamese Lake sub-basins; and a portion of the largest
lakes (i.e., Aberdeen Lake, and Judge Sissons Lake) in the area of Andrew Lake and End Grid
Lake. A maximum depth of 1,000 metres (m) below ground surface was selected to account
for the maximum depth of the proposed underground mine (approximately 500 m) and the
maximum depth to which potential change in groundwater flow conditions are expected to
occur.

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) — The same as the LAA because groundwater migration is
limited in spatial and temporal extent as a result of permafrost and low conductivities of the
rock mass.
AREVA’s temporal boundary for its hydrogeological effects assessment extended beyond the
operations, decommissioning and post-decommissioning phases of the Project. AREVA anticipated
potential effects on groundwater quality to last throughout the active mine period, following which
dewatering activities would cease and the groundwater system would recover to conditions similar to
the natural pre-mining conditions. AREVA expected hydrogeology, groundwater and surface water
receptor effects to be low, for both current permafrost conditions and potential changes to no77
permafrost conditions associated with climate change. It also noted that given the project design
features and the low hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass, all Project effects on hydrogeology were
predicted to be not significant.
AREVA proposed to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce potential Project effects
on groundwater:
 Proposed tailings management plan for the Project designed to avoid interaction between
tailings and natural water bodies, to maximize the use of mine workings for long-term
management of tailings and to ensure the long-term protection of terrestrial, aquatic and
human environments.
 Tailings treatment system in the mill and the tailings management facilities are designed to
minimize the release of constituents of potential concern (COPC) into the aquatic
environment.
AREVA has proposed to monitor hydrogeological effects through the implementation of a
groundwater monitoring program and through contingency plans to address unforeseen
circumstances. Monitoring would occur each year during the operational life of the Project at freshet
for water quality in lakes and streams adjacent to and downstream of the Kiggavik and Sissons areas in
order to confirm that COPC do not increase as a result of tailings management of mine rock
management activities.
4.7.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Hydrology
In their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association
(NTI/KIA) noted their concerns that AREVA had not fully assessed the significance of changes to water
quality or surface hydrology separately. Although AREVA concluded that these changes were
projected to be small and may not pose a significant risk to the aquatic environment, NTI/KIA noted
that the assessment was not consistent with principles outlined in Article 20 of the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement (NLCA), potentially involving compensation to the KIA. NTI/KIA recommended that
AREVA assess significance to changes in water quality, water quantity and flow as stand-alone valued
ecosystem components.125 In its response, AREVA noted that the information provided in Volume 5,
Section 6 of the FEIS should be sufficient for the environmental assessment determination of Project
effects on surface hydrology. The information required for water compensation under Article 20 of
the NLCA was captured under a different process (i.e., water licensing). AREVA acknowledged that
sufficient information related to water flow would be required to inform these discussions at the
appropriate time.126
Within its final written submission, Environment Canada (EC) recommended that AREVA monitor the
discharge stream as a component of the follow-up program for water quality before it flows into the
receiving environment to ensure that the water in the diversion system is not contact water. EC also
recommended that AREVA set the regulated criteria for discharge of wastewater to ensure that it
125
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
19.
126
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-120 and 2-253 - 2-258.
78
protect the receiving waters. In response, AREVA noted commitments to monitor total suspended
solids in freshwater diversion channels four times during the open water season for the first year
following construction, in order to assess the adequacy of the erosion control measures were included
in Appendix 5M Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan.126
EC further recommended that AREVA update its contingency plans to include response strategies for a
potential channel collapse or release of channel contents due to deformation/collapse due to melting
permafrost. In its response, AREVA indicated general procedures for spill response, including the
potential breach of a diversion channel, were described in Appendix 10B and Section 4.2 of the FEIS.
Further, AREVA noted that the Spill Contingency and Landfarm Management Plan (Appendix 10B) was
a living document which would continually be reviewed and revised throughout the life of the Project,
and would be updated during the detailed design and licensing stage of the Project to include
response strategies for the potential overtopping or break of a diversion channel.127
EC further recommended that AREVA develop protective objectives for water quality in the Andrews
Lake end pit that include pH, hardness, chloride, and mercury. In response, AREVA provided water
quality guidelines which included pH, chloride, and mercury along with predicted concentrations of
hardness in Andrew Lake Pit water (Table A1.2-1 Appendix 2R, Attachment A – Andrew Lake Pit
Flooding). AREVA noted there is no Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) water
quality guideline for water hardness. Hardness was therefore not considered a constituent of
potential concern and had been identified as a toxicity reducing factor for several metals.128
During the Final Hearing, Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked for clarification on whether AREVA
intended to intercept surface water flow or to redirect or realign stream channels.129 In its response,
AREVA indicated that its intention was for both diverting around site and collecting freshwater to keep
it away from waste piles. Further, the channels had been assessed for fish presence, however AREVA
did not note whether any fish were present within the channels.130
Within its final written submission, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) noted that the commitments
made by AREVA with respect to data collection and analysis to support detailed design of water
collection/diversion channels sufficiently addressed NRCan’s recommendations. NRCan stated that
AREVA’s approach to detailed design, in combination with an effective monitoring and maintenance
program (as part of the Integrated Management System) was sufficient to ensure that diversion
channels maintain their integrity. NRCan generally agreed that the information collected by AREVA
was adequate for the current environmental assessment, recognizing that more detailed site specific
investigations and analysis are normally associated with the subsequent detailed design phase (i.e.
licensing). The commitments made by AREVA to conduct additional geotechnical investigations and
analysis prior to licensing were determined to be sufficient by NRCan, from a permafrost and terrain
127
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-121, 2-122 and 2-147.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-121, 2-122 and 2-147.
129
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 321,
lines 10-15.
130
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 321, lines 17-22.
128
79
stability perspective, to ensure that adequate information is available to finalize design of the Andrew
Lake Dewatering Structure.131
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake requested clarification on how much water would
be diverted in the channels at the project site. AREVA indicated that the water volume diverted in the
channels would not be substantial and would involve intercepting snow melt during spring to avoid
contact with areas it might become contaminated.
Hydrogeology
Within its final written submission, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) concluded that
the methods used for the hydrological and hydrogeological investigations and the hydrological designs
were appropriate and met the standard practice. Design measures to account for potential climate
changes were also considered to be appropriate. The CNSC also noted that AREVA had committed to
gather more hydrogeological data, refine the numerical model, and improve the groundwater flow
and contaminant transport model. However, CNSC provided several recommendations to support the
mitigation measures proposed by AREVA. The CNSC determined that the Kiggavik Project was unlikely
to have a significant adverse effect on the surface water environment during construction, operation,
and decommissioning, or on the surface water environment in the long term. In its response, AREVA
agreed to the Post-Environmental Assessment expectation described by the CNSC.131
Within its final written submission, NRCan noted the commitments made by the AREVA for the most
part addressed its concerns and recommendations regarding determination of configuration of
permafrost and taliks. The collection of additional baseline data as outlined in the commitments made
by AREVA would support further refinement of models and should provide an improved
characterization of ground thermal conditions. However, NRCan indicated that clarification would be
required to confirm that warmer ground conditions were considered in the revised analysis, and to
ensure that that no further lakes were identified as likely to have through taliks. NRCan also noted the
information generated through post-environmental assessment commitments would facilitate
refinement of groundwater models, and that NRCan was satisfied with AREVA’s response. In
response, AREVA noted that the revised analysis of lakes that could potentially support the formation
of a talik at higher temperatures was completed and included in the FEIS. The results of the analysis
demonstrated that using the warmer ground surface temperature did not identify any lakes that could
potentially support a talik that were not previously identified.131
4.7.3 Views of the Board
The Board understands that the tailings management facility would require long term maintenance
and monitoring even after the Project is closed and reclaimed. During this time, there would be
potential for climate change to affect hydrology and hydrogeology designs in respect of the reclaimed
tailings management facility. In any future project proposal to the NIRB, the Board is of the view that
an enhanced level of information about long term monitoring of tailings in an arctic environment
subject to climate change would be informative, particularly recognizing the Minister’s direction
respecting tailings containment in a changing arctic environment.
131
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-91 - 2-455.
80
4.7.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit hydrology and hydrogeology impacts having regard to information presented in
any future project proposal. The Board anticipates that the CNSC and Nunavut Water Board’s (NWB)
regulatory regime is sufficiently robust to address the majority of outstanding issues and impacts
during its regulatory review process. Should a future Project advance to regulatory review, the Board
encourages the CNSC and the NWB to integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into their respective regulatory
process by endeavouring to facilitate the participation of Inuit from affected communities in Nunavut.
4.8
Groundwater and Surface Water Quality
4.8.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on groundwater and surface water
within Volume 5 of the FEIS. Supporting baseline information, models, and plans were provided in
Appendices 5C through 5P. AREVA noted that it had selected the specific aquatic environment
components as Valued Environmental Components (VECs) for its assessment due to the Project’s
interaction through various project activities or physical works which included but not limited to:
water extraction, storage and discharge; alteration of drainage patterns and construction of diversion
channels; dewatering of the Andrew Lake; blasting in and near water bodies; release of treated
effluent; and dust deposition.
AREVA predicted effects of mine dewatering activities on groundwater levels below permafrost to be
continuous during the mining period, but reversible in the medium-term, and anticipated to have
negligible ecological and socio-economic implications. It was also predicted there would be no lake
water level changes to result from mine dewatering activities. With this, AREVA concluded that
residual adverse effects from the Project on groundwater quantity were not considered significant.
With respect to water quality, AREVA predicted minor changes resulting from dust deposition, which
would occur primarily during the period of high flows associated with spring runoff. AREVA also
predicted no significant adverse effect for both dust deposition and water quality, and no long-term
trends towards increasing lake acidification.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for its assessment on the
groundwater and surface water environment:
 Project footprint — The physical area covered by the Kiggavik and Sissons Mine Sites, as well
as any associated Project infrastructure (i.e., Utility corridors, roadways, water intake and
treated water discharge structures, and airstrip).
 Local assessment area (LAA) — The lakes and their tributary streams that may potentially be
directly affected by Project activities or infrastructure. This includes the main basin of Judge
Sissons Lake, as well as the Willow Lake, Lower Lake, Boulder Lake, and Caribou Lake subbasins; and the Siamese Lake watershed sub-basin that flows into the Aniguq River. In
addition, the site access LAA includes the corridor for the proposed winter access road from
Baker Lake to the Kiggavik mine site, as well as the Baker Lake dock site.
 Regional Assessment Area (RAA) — The same as the LAA because all effects are contained
within the LAA watersheds.
81
AREVA’s temporal boundaries for the assessment of effects on the groundwater and surface water
environment were related to Project activities associated with the construction, operation, final
closure, and post closure phases of the Project.
AREVA based its effects assessment for groundwater on two measurable parameters; the evaluation
of lakes potentially affected by dewatering of mines that extend beneath the permafrost and the
quality of the receiving surface water bodies potentially connected to the deep groundwater system.
Three water quality issues were identified by AREVA during stakeholder engagement for its effects
assessment: changes to surface water chemistry from treated effluent discharge from the Kiggavik and
Sissons water treatment plants (WTP); increased dust emissions and subsequent deposition of metals
and particulates resulting from mine construction and operation; and acid deposition resulting from
increased air emissions.
AREVA screened for cumulative effects to water quality to determine if cumulative environmental
effects were likely to occur. It noted potential cumulative effects existed if Project-related effects to
surface water quality overlapped spatially and temporally with those of other past, present and future
projects and activities. AREVA concluded that no local, Nunavut, or Far Future Scenario projects from
the Project Inclusion List in Appendix 1B were expected to affect surface water quality within the
identified spatial and temporal boundaries.
AREVA noted the concentration of constituents of potential concern (COPC), with established
thresholds, were expected to be below the appropriate threshold value, with the exception of
cadmium and selenium. The expected concentrations for cadmium within Judge Sissons Lake were
predicted to be below the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) water quality
guidelines once seasonal changes in hardness were considered; however, 95th percentile predicted
concentrations would exceed the CCME water quality guidelines in winter months. Concentrations of
selenium at the Judge Sissons Lake – 7 (JSL-7) sample site were predicted to exceed the CCME water
quality guidelines during the operation and final closure phases of the project; largely due to baseline
conditions and seasonal fluctuations. Changes in water quality were expected to occur during the
operation and final closure stages of the project but return to baseline levels at post closure, with no
significant adverse effects on water quality.132
AREVA predicted minor changes in water quality due to dust deposition would occur during the period
of spring freshet flows. Annual minor increases in metals, radionuclides and total suspended solids
(TSS) would occur over the operational life of the mine (about 25 years), but were not expected to
exceed any applicable water quality guideline or objective, or be measurable above natural
background variation.
AREVA noted within the FEIS that potential changes to lake pH could occur due to increased
atmospheric acid deposition as a result of the Project were predicted to occur primarily during the
open water season. AREVA indicated that it expected any potential changes would be small and likely
brief, due to the short residence times of the lakes, with no significant adverse effects on water
quality.
132
FEIS, Volume 5, p. 12-2.
82
AREVA proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for water quality to reduce the
potential effects of effluent release in the receiving environment:

Continually monitor water withdrawal and wastewater/effluent discharge rates and analyze
discharge quality, documenting according to Nunavut regulatory requirements and the MMER;

Monitor water quality in areas receiving treated effluent on a monthly basis during the
operations and closure phases, and on an annual basis during the post-closure phase;

Optimally designed the water treatment plant to support compliance with appropriate
effluent quality regulations;

Best management practices for dust control on roads and during the pit mining operation to
reduce deposition of particulates and metals in the Kiggavik Project area; and

Install scrubbers at the sulphuric acid plant and an air emissions control systems on the oilfired power generators and/or driers to mitigate the release of acid generating materials to
the atmosphere.
4.8.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission and during the Final Hearing, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
and the Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIA) had concluded that there was no technical basis to assess
water quality using data for any waterbody but the receiver itself, and that measured data from Judge
Sissons Lake must be used when modelling the impacts of effluent discharge and assessing the
significance of any changes. In summary, they noted use of the “regional baseline” provided a false
conclusion that several COPCs exceed water quality guidelines in the baseline conditions and inflated
the variance of the baseline water quality summary, thereby increasing the chances of not detecting
any effects that may be present when assessing for water quality changes in Judge Sissons Lake.133 In
its response, AREVA noted its committed to conduct two years of late winter, under-ice water quality
sampling in Judge Sissons Lake prior to licensing. In AREVA’s view, baseline under-ice data would
provide additional context for reviewing and interpreting environmental performance data
throughout the life of the Project. AREVA considered the differences in the ‘regional baseline’ versus
‘Judge Sissons Lake only baseline’ inconsequential for the majority of COPCs when evaluated in the
context of water quality predictions and the subsequent ecological risk assessment. AREVA further
reiterated its position that the background water concentrations used in the FEIS were adequate
inputs for the LAKEVIEW model, and that the approach taken and information provided in the FEIS was
sufficient for an environmental assessment determination.134
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) documented the absence of
comprehensive baseline information on water quality of Judge Sissons Lake during the spring freshet
which represented an important knowledge gap that would reduce the ability to predict impacts to
water quality in Judge Sissons Lake resulting from the Project. The lack of this data also reduced the
ability to understand the fate and effects of COPCs in the lake ecosystems. The GN recommended that
AREVA develop and implement a methodology to sample and characterize water quality at key
133
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
17.
134
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-341 - 2-342.
83
locations at Judge Sissons Lake through the spring freshet period. The GN further explained that the
goal of such sampling should be to track water quality parameters (ions, nutrients, metals, organics,
other COPCs) in the water column and bottom sediment, and confirm any significant changes in water
quality during the spring freshet that might be linked to Project activities. In its response, AREVA
indicated there would be opportunity to collect additional baseline prior to construction and the need
for additional baseline would be determined at the licensing/permitting stage. AREVA further noted
that the aquatic effects monitoring plan (AEMP) in Appendix 5M included water quality parameters
(metals, radionuclides, TSS, pH) which would be monitored in appropriate lakes and streams to
confirm results were within predicted or acceptable levels due to dust deposition and air emissions
from Project activities. This monitoring would occur during the spring freshet throughout the
operational life of the Project.
Within its final written submission, Environment Canada (EC) recommended that the Proponent
identify any gaps in the baseline dataset that could compromise the ability to detect changes in the
aquatic environment over the life of project. This should include (at a minimum) identifying where
further data should be collected pre-construction to fully characterize seasonal and inter-annual
variability and collecting baseline data downstream of Judge Sissons Lake.135 In its response, AREVA
expressed its belief that the existing baseline water quality dataset provided in Appendix 8A was
sufficient for an environmental assessment determination. It noted that Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 8A
provided an evaluation of the potential impacts on water quality downstream of Judge Sissons Lake,
which concluded that predicted concentrations of COPCs downstream of Audra Lake would be well
below available water quality guidelines. AREVA also noted that in anticipation of licensing, it would
collect late winter under-ice water quality data at Judge Sissons Lake over a minimum of two years
and through implementation of the AEMP in Appendix 5M, it would continue to collect reference site
water quality data throughout the life of the Project which would help characterize variability in the
local dataset.136
During the Final Hearing, NTI/KIA questioned AREVA on the effluent quality values used in the
Lakeview model for Judge Sissons Lake, which used a conservative representation of effluent
quality.137 AREVA clarified that the model used a range of values for effluent concentrations and other
statistical parameters.138
In its final written submission, EC recommended the Proponent identify appropriate reference sites
and areas that would be required under the Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program as soon
as practicable. EC further noted that if candidate lakes currently under consideration prove
unsuitable, that additional field data should be collected to identify a comparable lake reference site
prior to construction.139 In its response, AREVA noted following approval of the Project, and prior to
commencing operations, reconnaissance studies would be conducted to determine the location of
suitable reference areas. In addition, the schedules and protocols identified in the EEM guidance
documents, EC and the Technical Advisory Panel would be required to review and approve the
135
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 14.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-123 - 2-124.
137
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p.
301-302, lines 19-26 and 1-4; p. 303, lines 14-17; p. 304, lines 18-20.
138
S. Fernandes, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 303, lines 19-24.
139
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 15.
136
84
Kiggavik EEM study design prior to implementation, which includes the selection of adequate
reference locations.140
In its final written submission, EC further recommended the Proponent develop an AEMP framework
which outlines the study design in detail including an evaluation of baseline data adequacy, along with
a plan to address any gaps, and identify adaptive management thresholds for the aquatic environment
and ecosystem. Also, it was recommended that AREVA consider convening a monitoring working
group consisting of stakeholders. In its response, AREVA noted it would endeavor to identify
efficiencies and align monitoring programs between regulatory requirements. AREVA also committed
to considering holding a workshop to review the proposed AEMP and provide feedback prior to
licensing/permitting, recognizing the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).141
During the Final Hearing, the KIA requested a commitment from AREVA to design the AEMP to add
additional water quality data specific to Judge Sissons.142
Within its final written submission, EC recommended that AREVA put in place a management plan to
ensure that all effluents from the mine site are managed in order to be in compliance with the metal
mining effluent regulation (MMER). In its response, AREVA referred to its detailed water management
plan in Appendix 2I. The plan provided consolidated information on water management strategies for
intercepting, collecting, containing, and monitoring potentially contaminated water from the Project
sites.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA asked Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
whether there would be an increase in funding for water quality management along the three
watersheds that would be affected by the project.143 In its response, AANDC indicated while it had
developed a water quality monitoring program specifically for the Baker Lake watershed, it would
need to inquire within the department regarding any potential funding increases.144
During the Final Hearing, a community representative, from Arviat, question AREVA on its monitoring
studies, asking:
…-- you've been asked by the department of environment on monitoring. The department had
asked several questions, but you were only able to answer one. You said you had a Plan A with
regards to how you were going to manage water. Do you have a Plan B in place if the studies
that you -- you do do not turn out as well as you thought that they would have? Do you have a
Plan B to monitor water? 145
140
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-125.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-127.
142
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p.
297, lines 11-18.
143
L. Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 871,
lines 18-21.
144
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 871, lines 1-9.
145
P. Alareak, Arviat, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1533-1534, lines 2226 and 1-3.
141
85
In response, AREVA noted detailed technical discussions with intervenors during the technical
presentations where effluent treatment plants and reverse osmosis systems were debated to ensure
water quality values are achieved.146
A community representative from Whale Cove expressed concerns regarding water purification and its
potential impact on fish, requesting
…clarification that I'd like to make now in regards to the -- cleaning up -- up the -- the water.
Some fish do eat some kind of a small gravel and only small organisms' cappings and little fish.
If they start cleaning up and sucking out -- sucking out these26 little -- if you're going to clean
or treat the water, the -- the zooplankton on which the fish eat, will that have an effect on
them as well, and how will it affect the fish?147
In its response, AREVA explained how it assessed potential for impacts to benthic organisms,
zooplankton and sediment from potential contaminants.
Within its final written submission, NTI/KIA indicated concern in the sizing and number of the safety
screens to control the escape of resin fragments that break down by normal attrition in the process.
Another area of concern for NTI/KIA was the possible fouling of the resin with calcium sulphate
(gypsum) that might require aggressive chemical and mechanical treatment to regenerate. NTI/KIA
recommended that the mill design should address potential resin damage due to gypsum build up and
the possibility of resin damage or loss due to this condition. In its response, AREVA explained it had
captured the necessity of proper process design to limit resin loss and maintain the uranium recovery
efficiency of the plant. In AREVA’s view, the details of the milling process would be best encompassed
during the detailed technical design of the mill (i.e. licensing). AREVA also noted its position that there
is an inherent desire from an economic perspective to limit the amount of resin loss from the mill.
AREVA agreed that consideration should be taken in the detailed design and operational phases of the
project to limit resin loss but noted it did not consider that specific terms and conditions were needed
as part of the environmental assessment process as this did not influence environmental effects of the
project or the conclusion of the assessment.148
NTI/KIA further stated in their final written submission that the application of reverse osmosis (RO)
may be effective in theory but in actual practice may require more capacity or other methods to bring
the water to release standards. They requested a response from AREVA on the impact of making
provision in the mill design for alternate methods or surplus capacity in the RO equipment. In its
response, AREVA noted the base case for water management at Kiggavik considered the recycling of
RO permeate for use in the mill. Based on the anticipated mill water requirements, all permeate
would be used in the mill processes. The water treatment plant design included chemical treatment
of the RO reject. The chemical treatment portion of the design is a three stage water treatment plant
similar to the McClean Lake JEB water treatment plant, which had successfully treated water from the
milling process for over 10 years. AREVA was therefore confident that the RO in conjunction with
146
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1541, lines 2-5.
M. Nangmalik, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1554-1555,
lines 20-26 and 1-4.
148
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-309 - 2-310.
147
86
chemical treatment would be an effective means of treating the process water. AREVA further noted
that if test work showed that the current preferred option might not be a viable means of treatment,
alternative options outlined in the Alternatives Assessment would be considered.149
NTI/KIA noted the FEIS predicted that water quality would be changed downstream of Judge Sissons
Lake, so effects would extend beyond the LAA, however a RAA had not been defined to accommodate
this finding. In addition, an assessment of the extent of downstream changes had not been provided,
in particular, a determination of whether or not measurable effects were predicted at the point of
discharge of the Anigaq River to Baker Lake. In its response, AREVA referred to Table 4.2.8-1, where it
stated that it could be seen that the predicted incremental downstream water concentrations were
well below the available Water Quality Guidelines for all COPC.150
Within its final written submission, the GN requested that AREVA justify its assumption of complete
effluent mixing within Judge Sissons Lake, as this was currently unsupported by the information
provided in the FEIS. In the event that incomplete mixing may occur, the GN indicated that the
Proponent needed to demonstrate lack of significant aquatic effects as a result of this. In its
response, AREVA indicated that it planned to discharge treated effluent into Judge Sissons Lake by
using a diffuser system to promote treated effluent mixing. AREVA further explained that Judge
Sissons Lake was separated into eight different segments during the modelling with potential
exchange between the segments being affected by diffusion and convection. Any potential areas
where incomplete mixing would occur would be bounded by the predictions in each segment in the
winter (under ice) conditions, however, there would be limited volume of water and reduced
exchange between segments.151
Within its final written submission, the GN recommended that AREVA be required to develop the site
specific estimated feed chemistry for both water treatment plants. To properly evaluate feed
chemistry, the GN felt that the water balance and source terms should be used to develop reasonable
loading estimates. It was further recommended that laboratory test work be required to validate
assumptions made by software modelling. With this, AREVA should also be required to present data
that show the similarity with Key Lake/McCLean Lake feed chemistry and the Kiggavik feed chemistry,
for the purposes of validating modelling assumptions. Finally, the GN recommended that costing of
the treatment plant include the maximum treatment capacity and not the average treatment rates.
AREVA should be required to demonstrate that treatment is not cost prohibitive at reasonably
conservative, upper bound treatment rates.152 In its response, AREVA noted its Water Management
Plan included commitments to ensure that effluent quality would meet regulatory and licensing
requirements and that routine monitoring and reporting activities would be conducted. AREVA also
committed to designing a Water Treatment Plant at the Kiggavik Site with the preferred option of RO
followed by a three-stage chemical water treatment plant that meets the MMER, maintains ERA
predictions, and would meet treated effluent discharge design criteria that would be developed during
the CNSC’s licensing process.153
149
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-316 - 2-317.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-362 - 2-363.
151
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-245 - 2-246.
152
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 68-70.
153
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-247 - 2-249.
150
87
Within its final written submission, EC recommended that the Proponent address concerns with high
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations in effluent by: investigating options to reduce the
concentrations in effluent and identifying feasible ways to reduce TDS to acceptable levels; minimizing
the mixing zone in Judge Sissons Lake that has elevated TDS concentrations to the smallest area
possible in the vicinity of the diffuser; monitoring the receiving environment water quality and aquatic
ecosystem changes; and developing an adaptive management plan to respond to changes and take
action before they become impacts. In its response, AREVA indicated that the guiding factors in the
development of the mining plan were to minimize freshwater use for the Project and thus RO
treatment was proposed. Alternatives were examined but the treatment option outlined in the
project description was believed to be the appropriate balance between all considerations. It was also
noted that the Project would be required to comply with the MMER which stipulates discharge limits
for deleterious substances, and requires routine monitoring of mine water effluent, including acute
toxicity testing with Daphnia magna; and AREVA would conduct EEM as specified in the regulations
and guidelines administered by EC.154
In its final written submission, EC recommended that the Proponent review treatment options that
could be used to reduce the sulphate concentrations in effluent discharges. In its response, AREVA
noted the RO treatment was deemed the most appropriate balance between all considerations.
Further, the water treatment option would be optimized as a result of on-going tests and studies, and
the design criteria would be updated at the time of licensing. And finally, the MMER requirements
would identify any acute lethality issues and be considered in a holistic way as part of the full MMER
program including the EEM program.
EC further recommended that the Federal Water Quality Guideline (WQG) for cobalt (2.5 µg/L for
freshwater) be used as a benchmark for water quality objectives. In its response, AREVA
acknowledged that its FEIS was missing the most recent guidelines for cobalt and would be reflected in
future updates to the risk assessment. AREVA noted its commitment to incorporating new scientific
information as it becomes available as part of its Environmental Management Plan, further indicating
that the FEIS predictions and significance determinations related to cobalt in water would remain
unchanged with the noted value for cobalt.155
EC expressed concern that the amount of ammonia at discharge might be underestimated, as these
predictions did not consider sewage releases to Judge Sissons Lake and did not appear to consider RO
permeate overflow releases to Judge Sissons Lake (if/when recycling is not possible). EC
recommended that AREVA monitor ammonia concentrations from all sources and closely track levels
in effluent and regularly characterize effluent quality and toxicity using bioassay testing and chemical
analysis.156 In its response, AREVA noted effluent characterization required under MMER EEM
program would include monitoring of ammonia at all final points of control. AREVA committed to
meeting all monitoring requirements under MMER and, in addition to effluent characterization under
MMER, AREVA would monitor ammonia as part of the parameter list for routine monitoring.157
154
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-129.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-134.
156
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 24 - 25.
157
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-145.
155
88
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) asked
for clarification on what cadmium and sulfate were and why they were not currently present but
would be elevated.158 In its response, AREVA explained that cadmium is a metal and would be
extracted through the water treatment process and released as effluent. Sulfates are salts, which
would be concentrated through the water treatment process, and would be released through effluent.
AREVA did not anticipate large changes other than a couple areas where it could be “a little bit higher
than the water quality guideline”.159
During the Final Hearing, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit asked for clarification on the Judge Sissons
Lake outflow and the planned frequency of sampling for both cadmium and sulfates.160 AREVA
indicated the water flow eventually enters the western side of Baker Lake and sampling is scheduled
for a quarterly basis.161
In its final written submission, EC noted that the FEIS describing the LAKEVIEW dispersion model used
to assess the potential effects of the Project on water and sediment quality did not provide data
regarding potential loading to the environment. EC further noted that the potential camp wastewater
discharge was evaluated from a toxicity basis only. Nutrients in treated wastewater, specifically
phosphorus and nitrogen species were not presented or calculated in the water quality model for
discharge into Judge Sissons Lake. EC further noted that it appeared that potential cumulative effects
of nutrients in treated wastewater to Judge Sissons Lake over the life of the project had not been
calculated. EC stressed that oligotrophic lakes, such as Judge Sissons Lake, are very sensitive to
nutrient additions, with phosphorus being typically the limiting nutrient. EC recommended AREVA
evaluate the amount and potential effects of phosphorus loadings from all sources to Judge Sissons
Lake prior to finalizing the effluent treatment plant configuration, to remove nutrients from the final
effluent if necessary to prevent eutrophication, and identify action levels for phosphorus
concentrations as appropriate.162
In response to EC’s comments, AREVA explained that the screening calculation of the potential loading
from the waste water treatment plant was discussed and this considered the potential impact of
ammonia, TSS, biochemical oxygen demand and phosphorus. Sewage effluent was assumed to be
discharged at the concentrations of the sewage discharge criteria. The screening calculations, which
was inherently conservative and were meant to represent a worst-case estimation of the potential for
an impact, indicated that the release of treated effluent was not expected to affect lake water quality.
They also noted their commitment to ensuring that the waste water treatment plants selected for this
site at the time of licensing meets the discharge criteria and developing a detailed AEMP which would
satisfy regulatory requirements in a streamlined and focused way.163
158
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 325, lines 19-23.
159
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 325-326, lines 25-26
and 1-14.
160
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4,
2015, p. 326, lines 23-26.
161
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 327, lines 3-11.
162
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 23-24.
163
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-143.
89
In its final written submission, EC recommended that AREVA provide the Board with clarification for
the FEIS regarding the meaning of "treated sewage effluent", as originally committed, and put in place
contingency measures to ensure that any discharges to the environment are in compliance with the
Fisheries Act and that receiving environment water quality objectives are maintained.164 In its
response, AREVA noted all sewage would be treated prior to discharge to Judge Sissons Lake. The
water balance schematics (Appendix 2I) provided the final discharge points for all effluents. The
sewage treatment plant would be designed to have some level of redundancy to allow the plant to
continue to operate during normal maintenance activities, as well as temporary storage in the event
that the sewage treatment plant was shut down for maintenance. Batch discharge of sewage means
the sewage may be discharged on an intermittent basis. All sewage treatment plant effluent
discharged would be treated to meet discharge criteria.165
NTI/KIA noted some inconsistencies and lack of sufficient detail to fully understand the sequencing of
the operation for tailings deposition in the various pits, contaminated waste rock disposal, reclamation
of the Tailing Management Facility’s, and possible delays in pit availability to extend mining either by
conventional methods or in-situ leaching and recommended AREVA provide more detail to the above.
In response, AREVA stated that it believed there was sufficient information presented in the FEIS to
demonstrate that appropriate facilities have been considered to mitigate potential environmental
impacts from tailings and mine rock. With respect to the specific comments regarding the lack of
detail on the sequencing of materials, practical solutions could be envisioned from the material
presented in the FEIS. For example, the stabilization of overburden slopes with clean waste rock could
be sourced from the excavation of the pit built for water storage or the excavation of the East Zone Pit
as each source is tested to show it is suitable.166
EC recommended that AREVA develop protective objectives for water quality in the Andrews Lake end
pit lake that include pH, hardness, chloride, and mercury.167 In its response, AREVA provided water
quality guidelines in Table A1.2-1 (Appendix 2R, Attachment A – Andrew Lake Pit Flooding), which
included pH, chloride, and mercury. As noted in Table A1.2-1, there is no CCME water quality
guideline for hardness. Hardness is not COPC and had been identified as a toxicity reducing factor for
several metals. The predicted concentration of hardness in Andrew Lake Pit water was provided in
Table A1.2-1.168
NRCan generally agreed that the information collected by AREVA was adequate for this environmental
assessment, and recognizes that subsequent more detailed site specific investigations and analysis are
normally associated with detailed design. The commitments made by AREVA to conduct additional
geotechnical investigations and analysis prior to licensing should be sufficient, from a permafrost and
terrain stability perspective, to ensure that adequate information is available to finalize design of the
Andrew Lake Dewatering Structure.169
164
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 25-26.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-146.
166
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-314 - 2-315.
167
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 26.
168
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-147.
169
Natural Resources Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 10.
165
90
Within its Final Written Submission, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) noted that the commitments
made by AREVA with respect to data collection and analysis to support detailed design of water
collection/diversion channels sufficiently address NRCan’s recommendations. AREVA’s approach to
detailed design, in combination with an effective monitoring and maintenance program (as part of the
Integrated Management System) was considered by NRCan to be sufficient to ensure that diversion
channels maintain their integrity.170
NTI/KIA had concern that AREVA did not evaluate the environmental hazard of all radionuclides
cumulatively, which was the approach used for the surface water objectives by Saskatchewan.
Instead, individual radionuclides had been compared to CCME drinking water guidelines which were
not intended to be protective of aquatic life, and consider individual sources of radiation only in
contrast to the applicable surface water objectives used by Saskatchewan. NTI/KIA believed that
AREVA’s conclusion was made without evaluating the risk posed by cumulative radiation exposure
resulting from multiple radionuclides potentially released through the uranium mining process.171 In
response, AREVA referred to Appendix 8A, Section 6.5.1 for general discussion of relative biological
effectiveness and Section 2.8 for equations and text on how radiological dose was calculated for
aquatic biota. AREVA explained that, as indicated by Saskatchewan and in the Canadian Drinking
Water Guidelines, gross alpha and beta are used for screening purposes. If screening levels are
exceeded, then concentrations of specific radionuclides should be analysed. ARVA also noted that
measurements of gross alpha and gross beta alone do not provide sufficient information to be able to
conduct an effects assessment. Consistent with CSA N288.6, radionuclide data gathered as part of the
monitoring program (Appendix 5M) would be evaluated at a minimum on a 5-yr basis to see if the ERA
needs to be updated, and the actual data could be used to update or validate the ERA.172
During the Final Hearing, the Government of Nunavut (GN) indicated that the basis of the Toxicity
Reference Value (TRVs) for various receptor groups (phytoplankton to predator fish) for cadmium
were not provided in Attachment G, and as a result, an appropriate review of these limits could not be
provided. The GN explained that the basis of the TRVs, as well as the hardness these values are based
on, would enable a review, relative to the predictions of cadmium in Judge Sissons Lake. In addition,
further data or information to support the statement that zooplankton would not be expected to be
affected by cadmium concentrations within Judge Sissons Lake, was considered important in order to
concur with the conclusion as stated. The GN also noted discussion provided by AREVA on page 8-3 of
Volume 8a suggested that the TRV used for zooplankton was not adjusted for hardness. The GN
recommended that AREVA provide supporting information for TRVs (including information on the
hardness that the TRV is based on, relative to that in the receiving environment), which would allow
an adequate review of Screening Indices for aquatic life in Volume 8a.173
In its response to the GN’s concerns, AREVA noted updates to the aquatic life criteria for cadmium,
U.S. EPA 2001, with compiled a list of toxicity data on aquatic species. Further, the U.S. Geological
Survey (2010) had also compiled and reviewed all toxicity data related to cadmium to estimate low
170
Natural Resources Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 4-5.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
19-20.
172
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-259 - 2-260.
173
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 65-66.
171
91
effects concentrations. The literature studies indicated that both acute and chronic effects of
cadmium were dependent on the hardness of the water. For chronic exposure daphnia, Hyallela and
Bull Trout were considered to be the most sensitive species. The data compilation from the U.S.
Geological Survey was used to obtain information on cadmium toxicity. AREVA also indicated that
there have been very few studies related to sulphate toxicity and federal water quality guidelines have
not been developed in Canada. AREVA noted a recent study carried out by researchers who provided
a comprehensive set of toxicity data that were generated using protocols established by the CCME.
The data were obtained under varying levels of hardness and were deemed most appropriate for
evaluating the effects of sulphate on aquatic biota.174
During the Final Hearing, Environment Canada asked AREVA whether it would monitor any indicators
such as increased late productivity for the year or two after peak camp numbers as well as track
winter oxygen levels.175 In its response, AREVA noted its effluent treatment process with the best
available technology; however AREVA also acknowledged that there had been concerns raised
regarding total dissolved solids.176
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) asked
for an explanation regarding why the Proponent planned to both source and then discharge water
from a large lake, and what type of effect they were trying to reduce.177 In its response, AREVA
clarified that it would be withdrawing water from both Siamese and Mushroom Lakes because their
sizes would reduce fluctuations in water levels which could impact fish habitat. Further, the treated
effluent would discharge into Judge Sissons Lake, with design to add water for a positive effect.178
During the Final Hearing, a community member from Baker Lake expressed concern regarding the
sustainability of the water in Baker Lake and the potential impacts an increase in shipping would have
on water quality, noting:
…we've heard in our presentations that AREVA will be bringing in 31 ships. That's total -- 64
total transports up and down. Agnico Eagle usually has 25 to 30 tugs come into Baker Lake. So
that could be a minimum 50 trips. Two tugs are kept here in Baker Lake, and you see them
going up and down the lake all the time during the shipping season. […] I started counting
ships that were coming in and out. In 2014, there were 14 ships coming to our docking area.
That's 28 trips. So that's a minimum of 242 ships transfer -- going up and down Baker Lake.
And I might have missed a few a time or two, […]. The lake is our source of drinking water,
water for household use, and local activities involving harvesting, fishing, and family activities.
I'm wondering -- I see this, there's a risk that ships may bring in invasive species, which may
impact on the fish in our water. They also take water out of the lake as ballast for their ships.
Our water levels are low to begin with, and that's just more water going out of our lake. The
lake is a big part of our culture and traditional activities. […] In 2014 in the fall, there was a
174
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-241 - 2-242.
A. Wilson, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 311, lines
10-13.
176
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 311, lines 15-26.
177
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 324, lines 3-8.
178
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 324, lines 10-22.
175
92
meeting in Baker Lake about developing protections for the Baker Lake watershed, and that
won't be completed for five years. And then it was going to take 10 to 15 years to implement.
The lake could be polluted by then. […] So I'm wondering, what measures are in place to
prevent Baker Lake from being polluted and the levels being lowered yet, and what is it going
to happen then?179
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB asked AREVA whether any potential for adverse impacts to drinking
water quality in Baker Lake from the proposed seasonal winter road construction and operation of the
Kiggavik project has been identified.180 The NIRB further asked the GN whether it had any concerns
for adverse impact to drinking water quality in Baker Lake from the construction and operation for the
Kiggavik project.181 AREVA noted it had not identified any potential adverse impacts to Baker Lake and
the GN noted that given the Proponent’s commitments to conduct more baseline data sampling and
ongoing monitoring, it “did not see any likelihood of portable water concern for Baker Lake.”182
The Board requested clarification from EC on whether the possibility “land-borne diseases [being]
introduced into the local fish” have been considered, specifically from diversion channels and the
impacts to fish.183 DFO responded, noting that the diversion channels are in place to intercept water
from spring freshet and to avoid contact with the mine. DFO noted that it did not expect the
redirected water to be different from spring freshet.
4.8.3 Views of the Board
Maintenance and protection of the pristine nature of the water quality in Nunavut is important to
Nunavummiut. The Board notes during the Final Hearing that several parties raised concerns on the
lack of reference sites, on the lack of specific mitigation measures proposed, inadequate development
of monitoring plans, and insufficient assessment of uncertainty or specific sources of contaminants
from the proposed project. The Board notes that AREVA had proposed an Aquatic Effects Monitoring
Plan (AEMP) in Appendix 5M, and committed to undertake continued studies and monitoring as well
as implementing preventative and mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts of the Project
on groundwater and surface water quality. Particularly sensitive issues in this regard are treated
sewage effluent discharge into Judge Sissons Lake; and the potential for a concentration of effluent
during winter, followed by a surge of effluent into adjacent waters during spring melt. Also significant
are the potential effects of such discharge on zooplankton, with consequential effects on other aquatic
receptors.
179
B. Kabloona, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp. 1870-1872,
lines 6-26, 1-26 and 1-6.
180
R. Barry, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 613, lines 11-15 and 18-22.
181
R. Barry, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 823, lines 19-25.
182
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 823,
lines 1-4.
183
P. Kadlun, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p. 1147, lines 21-26.
93
4.8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board heard concerns from parties regarding the numerous issues in relation to potential effects
to groundwater and surface water quality from the Project. This is a matter which can be further
addressed during any future NIRB review. The Board anticipates that CNSC and the Nunavut Water
Board's (NWB) regulatory regime is sufficiently robust to address the majority of outstanding issues
and impacts related to water quality during its regulatory review process. Should a future Project
advance to regulatory review, the Board encourages the CNSC and the NWB to integrate Inuit
Qaujimaningit into their respective regulatory process by endeavouring to facilitate the participation
of Inuit from affected communities in Nunavut.
4.9
Sediment Quality
4.9.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on surface hydrology, hydrogeology,
water and sediment quality, aquatic organisms, and fish and fish habitat within volume 5 of the FEIS.
Supporting baseline information, models, and plans were provided in Appendix 5A-5P. AREVA noted
that it selected the specific aquatic environment components as valued environmental components
(VECs) for its assessment due to the Project’s interaction through various project activities or physical
works which included but not limited to: water extraction, storage and discharge; alteration of
drainage patterns and construction of diversion channels; dewatering of the Andrew Lake Pit; blasting
in and near water bodies; release of treated effluent; and dust deposition.
AREVA predicted sediment concentrations for all available constituents of potential concerns to be
below the guideline levels in all segments of Judge Sissons Lake, with the exception of arsenic, copper,
and nickel, where they were to be slightly elevated above average baseline levels. It further noted the
Project was not expected to substantially increase these levels as concentrations would remain within
the natural variation in baseline sediments. AREVA indicated that it expected Project-related residual
effects to sediment quality to occur within Judge Sissons Lake, but would diminish to background
levels before reaching the outlet of Judge Sissons Lake, with no significant adverse effects on sediment
quality.
AREVA identified the same three spatial assessment boundaries for its assessment on the sediment
environment as for groundwater and surface water quality (see Section 4.8: Groundwater and Surface
Water Quality). AREVA’s temporal boundaries for the assessment of effects on the aquatic
environment were related to Project activities associated with the construction, operation, final
closure, and post closure phases of the Project.
AREVA used commonly established protocols in analyzing data from environmental effects monitoring
studies at uranium mines to facilitate the comparison of sediment chemistry results to the CCME
Freshwater Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines and probable effects levels. Baseline sediment
quality data were collected in 22 lakes (including Baker Lake) between the fall of 2007 and 2013.
AREVA proposed to implement the same Project effects mitigation measures as for both hydrology
and water quality. In addition, it proposed to monitor sediment quality in the two basins and in the
94
main body of Judge Sissons Lake every three years as part of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan
(AEMP).
4.9.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within its final written submission, Environment Canada (EC) noted samples collected in 2013 showed
more consistent levels, which may be an artifact of sampling method and the sediment depth
analysed. However, EC noted that the results showed levels that are potentially harmful to aquatic life
and suggested that follow-up monitoring be completed to verify the prediction were related to
baseline variability. EC also noted that the sediment fauna would be adapted to the higher baseline
concentrations of various parameters. However, any project-related increases in concentrations could
result in exceeding tolerance thresholds, and cause biological effects. EC recommended that AREVA
collect and review biological monitoring data in conjunction with sediment and water chemistry
results and include sediment monitoring in the Environmental Assessment follow-up program.184 In its
response, AREVA noted its commitment to sediment quality monitoring in the FEIS and that any
information collected through the monitoring program would be evaluated on a minimum of a 5-yr
basis to see if the ecological risk assessment (ERA) needs to be updated, and whether the actual data
could be used to update or validate the ERA.185
The Board noted that AREVA has proposed to discharge effluent into Judge Sissons Lake and
requested clarification from NRCan on whether water and sediment from Judge Sissons Lake would
eventually flow in to Baker Lake.186 The KIA responded for both NRCan and EC noting that Judge
Sissons Lake flows into the Anigguq River, which then flows into Baker Lake.187
4.9.3 Views of the Board
The Board acknowledges the measures developed and proposed by the Proponent to protect
sediment quality. However, the Board remains concerned with the potential for changes in sediment
quality that may be directed or indirectly attributable to Project facilities and activities. It is important
that these issues be assessed and monitored throughout the life of the Project, as acknowledged by
AREVA during its response to EC.
4.9.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit sediment quality impacts having regard to information presented in any future
project proposal. The Board anticipates that the CNSC and the Nunavut Water Board’s (NWB)
respective regulatory regimes are sufficiently robust to address the majority of outstanding issues and
impacts related to sediment quality which may be identified during their regulatory review process.
Should a future Project advance to regulatory review, the Board encourages the CNSC and the NWB to
184
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 22-23.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-141.
186
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 909, lines 22-24.
187
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p.
910, lines 24-25.
185
95
integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into its regulatory process by endeavouring to facilitate the participation
of Inuit from affected communities and other communities in Nunavut.
4.10 Freshwater Aquatic Environment
4.10.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on aquatic organisms, and fish and fish
habitat within Volume 5 of the FEIS. Supporting baseline information, models, and plans were
provided in Appendices 5A through 5P. AREVA noted that it selected its specific aquatic environment
components as a Valued Environmental Components (VEC) for its assessment due to the Project’s
interaction through various project activities or physical works which included but not limited to:
water extraction, storage and discharge; alteration of drainage patterns and construction of diversion
channels; dewatering of the Andrew Lake Pit; blasting in and near water bodies; release of treated
effluent; and dust deposition. AREVA noted Project activities have the potential to result in changes to
the abundance or distributions of aquatic organisms, or to the quality or distribution of fish habitat.
AREVA’s assessment of change to the distribution and abundance of aquatic organisms identified
potential issues with cadmium exposure to zooplankton. Noting this potential issue as a residual
effect, no appreciable adverse effects on the abundance of aquatic biota were expected due to
changes in COPC concentrations in the receiving environment. AREVA indicated that provided
effective mitigation measures were enacted, no residual effect to fish populations was expected.
AREVA identified the same three spatial assessment boundaries for its assessment on the freshwater
aquatic environment as for groundwater and surface water quality (see Section 4.8: Groundwater and
Surface Water Quality).
AREVA’s temporal boundaries for the assessment of effects on the aquatic environment (except
hydrogeology) were related to Project activities associated with the construction, operation, final
closure, and post closure phases of the Project.
Aquatic Organisms and Fish Habitat
AREVA’s ecological risk assessment modelling showed potential exceedances of toxicity reference
values of cadmium and sulphate exposure for zooplankton. AREVA noted possible adverse effects for
some of the more sensitive zooplankton species; however, considering the moderate screening index
(SI) values and the spatial extent of the impact, the zooplankton population of Judge Sisson Lake was
expected to continue to function. AREVA also identified radiological dose to zooplankton populations
as a potential issue when cross-comparing the lower set of dose rate guidelines and a RBE of 40.
However, AREVA further noted that there was no indication of any potential effects for zooplankton in
Judge Sissons Lake when it calculated the radiological dose using a relative biological effectiveness
(RBE) of 10 or a SI value using the higher set of dose rate guidelines. Knowing there would be residual
effects, AREVA expected no significant adverse effects on the abundance and distribution of aquatic
biota with changes in constituents of potential concern (COPC) concentrations in the receiving
environment from releases from the water treatment plants (WTP).
AREVA noted a number of Project development activities would have the potential to permanently
alter of destroy fish habitat, including: diversion of streams, drainage of lakes or portions of lakes,
installation of stream crossing structures on all-season ore haul roads and other roads related to
96
constructing and maintaining Project infrastructure. However, AREVA indicated the implementation
of measures in a Conceptual Fisheries Offsetting Plan in Appendix 5L would avoid or mitigate the
effects to fish habitat and were expected to minimize serious harm to fish and negate the requirement
of fisheries offsetting. AREVA stated that none of the changes to fish habitat resulting from the
Kiggavik Project would affect the sustainability or productivity of commercial, recreational and
Aboriginal fisheries.188
AREVA proposed the following mitigation measures; see Appendix 5O for further discussion, which
would be implemented to reduce Project effects on aquatic organisms and fish habitat:
 Project design and construction activities to incorporate Best Management Practices for road
construction and installation of stream crossings.
 Erosion control measures would be incorporated into the design of stream and watercourse
diversions.
 Erosion control and turbidity management procedures would be used during the installation
of the lake water intake structures, effluent diffuser structures, and the spud barge dock in
Baker Lake
 Best management practices would be used with the installation of turbidity curtains prior to
constructing the berm in Andrew Lake, and proceeding with the dewatering of the east
portion of the Andrew Lake basin.
 Construction of the berm at Andrew Lake and dewatering the north-east end of the lake
would result in the loss of approximately 13.5 ha of shallow fish habitat. AREVA noted the
destruction of fish habitat was not anticipated to result in effects to fish that are part of a
commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fishery, and therefore did not propose an associated
conceptual fisheries offsetting plan.
 Construction of all-season roads as part of the Kiggavik and Sissons Mine Sites and their
associated infrastructure would affect fish habitat where the roads cross fish-bearing
streams. All crossings would be designed and installed to facilitate fish passage under all
flow conditions up to and including the 1 in 10 year flood. AREVA noted no effects to the
productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries were anticipated to occur,
and therefore did not propose an associated conceptual fisheries offsetting plan.
 A conceptual fisheries offsetting plan for the project was described in Appendix 5L.
AREVA proposed to monitor benthic invertebrate populations and diversity every third year during
mine operation, closure, and post-closure as part of the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program to
determine whether WTP effluent discharges were having quantifiable effects on benthic invertebrate
populations.
Fish Populations and Fish Health
AREVA identified potential effects to the abundance and distribution of fish in the Lower Lake
watershed, and potentially in the Pointer Lake watershed. These effects would be related to the
blasting program which has the potential to cause serious harm to fish in streams and lakes near the
188
FEIS, Volume 5, p. 12-3.
97
mine pits through the generation of shock waves and vibrations as explosive charges are detonated.
AREVA has planned mitigation measures such as the IPC threshold of 50 kPa, and a maximum vibration
threshold of 13 mm/s peak particle velocity, with no anticipated residual effects on fish abundance or
distribution. AREVA expects no effects to commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries.
AREVA expects toxicity benchmarks for copper and zinc to be exceeded for predator and forage fish
however, the indicated the predicted changes would be related to elevated baseline conditions and as
such, expected no appreciable adverse effects on fish health. It also anticipated no serious harm to
fish.
AREVA proposed to sample fish populations and analyze fish flesh for changes to metal and
radionuclide concentrations, every third year during mine operation, closure, and post-closure as part
of the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, to determine whether WTP effluent discharges
were having quantifiable effects on fish health, or metal and radionuclide concentrations in fish flesh.
Further, blasting effects models would be calibrated with actual on-site blasting data to obtain more
refined predictions of effects based on the actual foundation materials under Andrew Lake and the
Andrew Lake Pit berm.
4.10.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
During the Final Hearing, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIA)
asked for clarification on AREVA’s rationale for the methodology used for the overall assessment. The
KIA noted AREVA’s commitment with Environment Canada (EC) to continue further baseline data
collection. However, the NTI/KIA cautioned use of more variants for statistical analysis of significant
change and prediction of impact. If no further commitments for baseline data were to be established,
it would be an important follow up activity for the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP).189 In
its response, AREVA indicated that the baseline data did not cover all seasons and all types of
conditions, supplemented with extraction of regional data.190 NTI/KIA also asked AREVA what its
opinion was on when the aquatic baseline data and assessment would need to be updated, should the
project start-up be delayed.191 AREVA explained in response that it did not see the aquatic baseline
assessment as sensitive to changes, especially baseline, unless there was a grand perturbation in the
environment or change in detailed design.192
During the Final Hearing, EC noted concerns similar to the KIA with regards to the importance of
characterizing the variability in lakes and streams and indicated that additional baseline data should
be collected downstream of Judge Sissons to be able to quantify potential upstream effects. EC noted
that only one data set was collected to make the predictions. EC requested a commitment from
AREVA for further downstream baseline sampling. EC further requested that AREVA select a reference
189
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015,
p.296-297, lines 17-26 and 1-3.
190
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 297, lines 20-24.
191
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p.
305, lines 1-7.
192
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 305, lines 13-17.
98
lake to be able to conduct a before/after control impact study design with Judge Sissons. 193 In its
response, AREVA noted its commitment to gather further baseline data downstream of Audra Lake
and committed to seeking additional reference lake(s) outside of Judge Sissons Lake.194
EC further noted the predictions for concentrations of total dissolved sulfates and effluent were fairly
high and wanted to know how much conservative estimate was built into those predictions. In
response, AREVA indicated that their effluent treatment process to be comprehensive and that AREVA
used the best available technology, while helping to reducing the amount of freshwater required for
the operation.195
Within its final written submission, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) noted that AREVA had not
provided adequate information about the design, location and timing of installation of the exclusion
net when mitigating blasting effects on fish, in order for DFO to determine the appropriateness of the
net to mitigate serious harm to fish. DFO recommended that if any exclusion nets are used by AREVA
to isolate fish from areas affected by blasting, the nets must be sized appropriately so that they both
exclude and do not entrain or cause mortality of small fish, including young-of-the-year fish, in Andrew
Lake. Furthermore, DFO noted that the nets must be sited in such a way as to not to obstruct fish
passage.196 In its response, AREVA agreed to ensure fish exclusion nets that may be used in Andrew
Lake are both appropriately sized to protect fish and are sited so as to not obstruct fish passage at
inflow and outflow streams.197
Within its final written submission, DFO also noted discrepancies in the Proponent’s FEIS descriptions
for the number of water crossings, and the type of crossing at each location where the roads intersect
with water courses. DFO recommended that all water crossings be designed to specified measures,
and that AREVA provide a final list or table of all water crossings by location, including the final
intended crossing design to DFO at the regulatory phase. DFO further requested AREVA identify fishbearing crossings that might be affected by any of the proposed project roads. DFO further
recommended that AREVA increase monitoring of both the stability of all water crossings and the
water levels in Mushroom and Siamese lakes, and in collaboration with DFO, continue to develop
monitoring plans to ensure that mitigation measures proposed by AREVA are effective in avoiding and
mitigating serious harm to fish throughout the life of the Project. In its response, AREVA agreed to
provide the detailed design and engineering requirements and provide a final list of all water crossings
for assessment before beginning any construction.198 AREVA further noted its commitment to monitor
lake levels in Mushroom and Siamese lakes and outflow discharges from Mushroom and Siamese lakes
as outlined in the aquatic effects monitoring plan. AREVA also committed to conduct additional
monitoring at the water crossings in fish-bearing waters and continue to develop monitoring plans to
ensure that proposed mitigation measures are effective in avoiding and mitigating serious harm to fish
throughout the life of the Project.199
193
A. Wilson, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 308, lines
3-21.
194
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 308, lines 23-26.
195
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 311, lines 16-19.
196
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 11.
197
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-97.
198
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-99.
199
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-107 - 2-108.
99
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) asked
several questions regarding AREVA’s proposed construction activities, including: how the dyke would
be constructed at Andrew Lake and how the access road would be built with culvert placement. 200,201
In response, AREVA explained that it would use a clay-like material to slowly build the dyke into the
lake and dewater as construction progressed. AREVA further explained that culverts would be used at
fish passages during migration.
During the Final Hearing, P. Kigjugalik Hughson asked for clarification on what role Transport Canada
(TC) had with respect to the cable crossing across the Thelon River. TC indicated ferry cable
regulations were within its mandate, however, the Thelon River had not been assessed, and as no
notice of works had been submitted by the Proponent TC could not make any recommendations or
comment further at that time. The Board also asked for clarification on whether the cable ferry would
operate for both mine traffic and public access. AREVA responded that it would be open to the public
on a continual schedule.202
During DFO’s presentation at the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake asked whether vehicle traffic
travelling over the ice road would have any interference or harm the fish.203 In its response, DFO
referenced research from 2003 which determined ice road traffic did not produce enough sound in the
water to cause harm to fish, and noted they were not aware of any impacts to fish due to traffic on an
ice road.204 Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit then asked TC for clarification on whose mandate is
related to the effects of the ice road and spring run off on Baker Lake.205 The NIRB staff responded
with the understanding that the Nunavut Water Board would have a role if withdrawal of water was
required to support construction and/or maintenance.
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff asked the Proponent’s predictions regarding potential adverse
impacts to wildlife species associated with the proposed winter access road and mine related traffic.
The NIRB staff also noted clearing lakes and water bodies of snow cover for a winter road could
promote early thaw of ice and questioned whether AREVA had considered implications to safe
passage over ice if early thaw occurred.206 In its response, AREVA acknowledged that it had not
considered truck traffic on the ice, the potential implications to wildlife in Baker Lake, or the potential
implications to safe passage over ice if early thaw occurred.207,208 Later in the proceedings, AREVA
200
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1573, lines 8-9.
201
P. Kabloona, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1646, lines 2325.
202
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 245, lines 13-21.
203
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1107, lines 1-4.
204
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1107, lines 6-8 and 14-19.
205
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6,
2015, p. 894, lines 2-6.
206
R. Barry, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 337, lines 3-10.
207
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 335, lines 25-26.
208
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 335, lines 11-12.
100
provided a technical memo that described an analysis of the effects of noise caused by trucking across
ice roads on fish and discussed the effect of the ice road on-freeze-up or thaw.209
The NIRB staff also questioned DFO whether, after receiving AREVA’s “Assessment of the Proposed
Winter-Road Traffic on Aquatic Wildlife" memo during the Final Hearing, it supported the Proponent’s
findings of no potential for adverse effects to fish species in Baker Lake resulting from the potential
noise and vibration associated with the development and use of the proposed winter access road.
DFO noted that after having reviewed the document it agreed with the assessment and conclusions
provided.210
Within its final written submission, DFO further noted inadequate information was provided to
determine the extent of the effects of lost spawning habitat on Lake Trout populations that may result
from water withdrawal from Mushroom and Siamese Lakes. DFO recommended that AREVA evaluate
the potential localized effects of a loss of 1.6—11% of spawning habitat on Lake Trout populations in
Siamese and Mushroom Lakes. DFO also recommended that AREVA provide models and/or literature
references to evaluate these effects on Lake Trout populations, and consider further options for water
withdrawal to mitigate these effects.211 In its response, AREVA agreed to provide additional analysis
and would provide it to DFO in conjunction with detailed engineering and Project licensing, permitting,
and authorization for DFO to determine if there is any residual serious harm to fish associated with
freshwater withdrawal.212
DFO also noted within its final written submission that it would be important to determine whether
fish would be allowed to access the open pit once re-flooding has been completed and water quality
criteria were deemed suitable, before access is provided, as this may affect the design of the pit. DFO
recommended that AREVA ensure that Andrew Lake Pit contain or provide access to suitable habitat
for all life-stages of fish when the Project is decommissioned and the Pit is re-flooded; and during the
regulatory phase that AREVA develop, in collaboration with DFO, a Decommissioning and Reclamation
plan for the re-flooded Andrew Lake Pit. In its response, AREVA noted that the decision to connect the
flooded Andrew Lake Pit to Andrew Lake would be included in the Detailed Decommissioning Plan
(DDP). AREVA explained that it must obtain regulatory approval for the DDP prior to end of operations
and AREVA must obtain a License to Decommission from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) prior to the start of decommissioning. A memorandum of understanding between the CNSC
and DFO would provide assurance that the detailed decommissioning plans associated with Andrew
Lake Pit would be reviewed to meet the legislation outlined in the Fisheries Act.213
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake asked for clarification on the whether fish in
Andrew Lake would be rerouted to spawning areas, when kept from the blasting area. In its response,
DFO explained that the fish kept out of the blasting area would still have access to the spawning
209
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p. 937, lines 5-16.
G. Williston, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015,
p. 1916, lines 1-8.
211
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 14.
212
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-101.
213
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-109 - 2-110.
210
101
streams, as maintaining passage is one of DFO’s recommendations.214 The Hamlet of Baker Lake also
asked DFO whether there would be a need to repopulate the lake once the Project is decommissioned.
DFO noted that if closure plans included opening up the pit area back to the Lake and having it flood
with water, all stream channel connects would remain intact, and it would likely populate naturally.215
The Baker Lake HTO questioned DFO on whether removing the dyke around Andrew Lake pit and
allowing infilling of water would have any effect on the form of life reintroduced.216 DFO explained
that there could be dust mixed into the water; however the Proponent would be required to complete
water quality testing before breaching of the dyke.217
The Board questioned DFO during the Final Hearing regarding the proposed offsetting plan and
potential introduction of fish, asking the following:
In your offsetting plan, have you considered the carrying capacity of those lakes, where the
other fish from somewhere else will be moved into? I raise that, because there is the possibility
of introduction of many fish, which will go beyond the feeding capacity of the lake. I know
there will be a rapid depletion of food from introduction of other fish from another lake, which
will -- which we all know will cause rapid or rather massive die-off of those local fish, because
there will be no -- no more food for them, because there's too many fish feeding on it now.218
DFO noted that if the dike would be constructed in Andrew Lake, the fish would remain in the
untouched portion of the lake, and that there is currently no plan in place by AREVA to move fish to
another lake.219
Within its final written submission, TC noted that the FEIS did not contain the information necessary to
make an assessment of navigability and the applicability of sections 21-23 of the Navigation Protection
Act (NPA) and requested AREVA submit the required information to determine the navigability of
Andrew Lake and whether the NPA would be applicable.220 In its response, AREVA noted a postenvironmental assessment commitment to fulfill the requirements under the NPA. AREVA further
noted that it would submit applications for approval under the NPA when final design details become
available for project components, such as dykes, water intakes, temporary works, and outfalls that are
listed in the Schedule of the NPA and other waters that may potentially be considered navigable.221
214
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1108, lines 17-24.
215
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1109, lines 9-14.
216
D. Toolooktook, Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March
7, 2015, p. 1117, lines 9-14.
217
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1118, lines 2-7.
218
P. Kadlun, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, pp. 1149-1150, lines 17-26
and 1-3.
219
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1150, lines 6-23.
220
Transport Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 7.
221
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-489 - 2-490.
102
A community member from Whale Cove expressed concern regarding the winter road, stating:
This winter road, if I was living in Baker Lake, I would never think of it to be built. It's right -going through -- right through the lake where they get the water, and then it lands to -- Kakok
(phonetic) where they probably go fishing for fun. And it's running right through Antra
(phonetic) Lake. It's going through too many lakes. If you can -- if you were to be approved, I
think you would have -- you would have to make a new plan for the winter road if not built on
all-season road. Because it's coming from the dock site, Facility 1, and the dock is right on the
same area of Baker Lake land. And if you can make a dock on the other side of the lake, your
trucks wouldn't be running over the ice. Because of the fume, that exhaust, go through and
blow into the ice, it's putting it right through their drinking water.222
The Board noted that AREVA did not provide detail regarding the potential impacts to fish in Baker
Lake during its presentation at the Final Hearing, specifically related to the proposed winter access
road construction and operation. Further, the Board questioned whether, since AREVA did not have a
definite timeline for the start date of the project, had AREVA considered using the Meadowbank dock
location at that time to reduce the overall project footprint.223 AREVA acknowledged that it did
consider this alternative in the assessment and it would be a possibility to reduce the Project
footprint.224
DFO’s final written submission noted that AREVA’s Conceptual Fish Offsetting Plan (CFOP) concluded
that since serious harm to fish is not expected, no offsetting would be required. However, DFO’s
stated position was that additional information would be needed for AREVA to determine those
potential residual impacts that would require offsetting. DFO recommended that AREVA provide a
complete and finalized list of all aspects of the Project that might cause serious harm to fish in a
revised CFOP. DFO further recommended that AREVA provide additional data, models or references
to evaluate the potential effects that water withdrawal and dewatering would have on fish spawning
habitat in Siamese and Mushroom lakes and in Andrew Lake, respectively. In its response to final
written submissions, AREVA agreed to provide further information and analysis to DFO.
In their final written submission, NTI/KIA noted that a desktop study was undertaken by AREVA to
identify the potential impact of water drawdown on lake trout spawning habitat and that the results
of the study indicated that the potential loss of spawning habitat could be 0.12 hectares (ha) or 0.16
ha in Siamese Lake and 0.05 ha in Mushroom Lake. They recommended that both the proposed lake
trout spawning habitat surveys and the compensation plan AREVA committed to developing be
undertaken prior to the water licencing phase and as a requirement for any DFO fisheries
authorization. In response, AREVA indicated that it would provide additional analysis and evaluate the
potential localized effects of loss of spawning habitat on lake trout populations in the Siamese and
Mushroom lakes. AREVA noted this would be provided to DFO in conjunction with all detailed
engineering and Project licensing, permitting, and authorizations required for DFO to determine if
there would be any residual serious harm to fish associated with freshwater withdrawal.
222
E. Voisey, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 2029, lines 4-20.
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 340, lines 9-19.
224
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 340, lines 21-26.
223
103
During the Final Hearing, a community member from Whale Cove discussed fish spawning grounds
and asked:
One time -- one fall there were a lot of -- quite of fish -- number of fish that were laying eggs
even before they reached the lake where they usually spawn. I'm not really sure if the lake or
char -- do you usually have spawning spots? Like, the lakes and landlocked char usually have
spawning areas in some lakes. I've noticed this myself. I'm -- I'm asking, do you know that not
all fish have spawning spots, or you don't know that?225
Another community member from Repulse Bay (Naujaat) asked a question in relation to fish impacts
from blasting:
I wonder if you have -- did studies and noticed any fish -- while blasting, if some -- some fish die
as a result of blasting?226
A community member requested clarification on whether there was an off-setting plan for the
potential loss of habitat if Andrew Lake were to be dewatered.227 In its responses, AREVA discussed
the baseline studies it had undertaken as well as its planned research on fish and fish habitat;228 its
plan to reduce harm to fish during blasting with the use of exclusion nets;229 and that fish habitat
would be created elsewhere as part of an off-setting plan.230
In their final written submission, the NTI/KIA commented on AREVA’s decision to exclude zooplankton
from the proposed monitoring program due to the seasonal and variable nature of zooplankton and
AREVA’s explanation within the FEIS that this would consequently limit their use as routine monitoring
tools for evaluating environmental performance of the water treatment plant (WTP). NTI/KIA noted
that while it respected the opinion that zooplankton may not be suitable as a tool for evaluating the
environmental performance of the water treatment plant, or as a general monitoring tool, the
monitoring program should be capable of testing effects predicted in the FEIS. As an example, NTI/KIA
noted that changes to the zooplankton population may cause changes to the fish population and that
zooplankton sampling has been included in environmental monitoring programs for other northern
mines. In response, AREVA explained that the objective of the EEM program was to evaluate the
effects of metal mining effluents on fish, fish habitat, and the use of fisheries resources by humans.
AREVA believed that monitoring integrator endpoints such as fish and fish habitat provided assurance
that environmental effects were being appropriately monitored.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA further questioned AREVA’s aquatic effects assessment and asked for
clarification on why AREVA thought that zooplankton eggs would not be affected by cadmium
225
M. Nangmalik, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1556, lines 418.
226
M. Tuktudjuk, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, p. 1978,
lines 20-23.
227
T. Oovayuk, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, pp. 1968-1969,
lines 26 and 1-3.
228
AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1557, lines 20-26.
229
AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1979, lines 1-8.
230
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1969, lines 8-15.
104
exposure and whether it had sampled Judge Sissons Lake during the winter months to confirm that all
zooplankton were present only as eggs. The KIA noted that technical literature showed that freeswimming juvenile and adult zooplankton are reduced in numbers in wintertime in Arctic lakes. The
KIA further expressed concern that due to the importance of zooplankton as a food source for fish like
Arctic Char, AREVA had underestimated the potential Project effects of cadmium by not assessing
free-swimming zooplankton, and questioned why it was not determined necessary to test the
zooplankton related predictions through the monitoring program.231 AREVA explained that it did not
collect zooplankton in the winter as it took used a conservative approach in the predictions of
cadmium.232 AREVA further noted that the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) identified costeffective monitoring endpoints for effluent and believed the endpoints to monitor the ecosystem
structure and function to be suitable to ensure that fish and fish habitat are protected.
During the Final Hearing, EC noted similar concern regarding zooplankton and requested that AREVA
sample during the winter while conducting its proposed under ice sampling at Judge Sissons Lake.233
AREVA confirmed that it could collect zooplankton at the same time to facilitate the evaluation
subsequently with the effects monitoring program.234
During the Final Hearing, the CNSC noted that zooplankton is not used for routine monitoring in mines
in Canada under the MMER to the difficulty in being able to determine whether there is a mine effect
or whether it is natural variability observed in zooplankton. The CNSC further noted that the potential
for zooplankton to be used as an effective monitoring tool could be addressed during CNSC licensing
or the Nunavut Water Board process.235 In response, the KIA added that zooplankton monitoring has
been used at northern diamond mines and would make the details available to the CNSC.236
Within its final written submission, EC requested clarification regarding the screening index values that
have changed within the FEIS and the extent to which the valuable ecosystem components would be
negatively affected by the Project. EC also recommended the implementation of a follow-up program
for aquatic biota, including but not limited to zooplankton and benthic invertebrates, to verify the
results of the environmental risk assessment and confirm AREVA's conclusions that impacts would not
be significant. EC further recommended that AREVA implement biological monitoring over the Project
operations phase to identify whether effects on aquatic biota are occurring due to sulphate and
cadmium. In its response to written submissions, AREVA noted changes that were made to the model
predictions for cadmium between the DEIS and FEIS due to modifications to the model. AREVA also
noted that differences in the numbers between the DEIS and FEIS did not affect the conclusions of its
residual and significant effects assessment. AREVA further noted that the EEM program requires
231
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p.
298-300, lines 16-20, 22-26 and 1-18.
232
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 299-300, lines 3-14
and 21-25.
233
A. Wilson, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 310, lines
3-8.
234
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 310, lines 11-13.
235
M. McKee, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6,
2015, p. 688, lines 6-18.
236
N. Hutchinson, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p.
688, lines 6-9.
105
monitoring of integrator endpoints such as fish and fish habitat which would provide assurance that
environmental effects are being appropriately monitored. However, AREVA did note that subsequent
ecological risk assessment indicated there would be some influence of effluent on aquatic biota.
Within its final written submission, EC noted that trophic status might be an important factor to
consider for substances that bio-accumulate or bio-magnify, such as polonium-210. EC recommended
that AREVA, at a minimum, consider trophic levels during its risk assessment, noting that by grouping
species from different trophic levels and creating a transfer factor to be applied to all trophic levels
only averages out the trophic or bio-magnification effect. In its response, AREVA noted that the fish
used in the development of the empirical transfer factor were from higher trophic levels, and, as such,
it is expected that the polonium-210 exposure to lower trophic level fish is being over-stated.
4.10.3
Views of the Board
The Board appreciates parties concerns regarding the limited amount of baseline information and the
recommendation that the Proponent conduct additional baseline samples and reference lakes to
characterize the variability in lakes and streams. The Board agrees that to fully understand the
potential impacts of the proposed Project on Judge Sissons Lake and to streams and lakes
downstream of the lake, that the addition of a reference lake to the monitoring program and
collection of additional baseline data would be useful for a before/after control study. The Board
notes that AREVA has committed to conduct these additional sampling programs.
The Board agrees with parties recommendations to improve the aquatic effects monitoring plan by
incorporating a framework that includes an evaluation of baseline data adequacy, along with a plan to
address any gaps, identification of adaptive management thresholds for the aquatic environment and
ecosystem, and include additional monitoring, such as water crossings and water levels, to ensure no
obstructions to fish passages. The Board notes that the proposed Thelon River crossing would via
ferry would represent a new technology and work in Nunavut, and encourages special attention to
mitigate the potential effects of this work given the heritage nature of that waterway.
The Board was further concerned with the lack of an effects assessment and management plan for the
proposed ice road on Baker Lake, as noted in AREVA’s acknowledgement that “it did not consider
truck traffic on the ice nor the implications to wildlife in Baker Lake.”237 The Board encourages further
attention to this matter in any future project proposal.
4.10.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit freshwater aquatic impacts having regard to information presented in any future
application. The Board anticipates that the CNSC’s and the Nunavut Water Board’s (NWB) regulatory
regimes are sufficiently robust to address majority of outstanding issues and impacts related to
freshwater aquatics during its regulatory review process. Should a future Project advance to
regulatory review, the Board encourages the CNSC and the NWB to integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into
their respective regulatory process by endeavouring to facilitate the participation of Inuit from
affected communities in Nunavut.
237
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 335, lines 25-26.
106
4.11 Vegetation
4.11.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential Project effects on vegetation in Volume 6, Section 9 of the FEIS and
provided baseline information in Volume 6, Appendix 6B - Vegetation and Soils Baseline, proposed
mitigation measures in Appendix 6D - Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and strategies for revegetation in Appendix 2R - Preliminary Decommissioning Plan. AREVA concluded in Volume 6 that
overall the predicted residual effects on vegetation abundance and community diversity and
vegetation quality would not be significant and that there would be no cumulative effects.
AREVA identified the same three spatial assessment boundaries for vegetation as for the terrestrial
environment (see Section 4.4: Terrestrial Environment). AREVA based the temporal boundaries for its
vegetation assessment on the timing and duration of potential effects from proposed activities
association with the Project. The assessment covered the period of all major project phases including
construction, operation, final closure and post closure, which was anticipated to last 25 years.
AREVA noted that it was unable to identify threshold values for changes in vegetation abundance and
community diversity, and consequently had based its significance determination on the number of
projected hectares disturbed for each ecological land classification (ELC) map unit within the
respective LAAs and the predicted amount of wetland area disturbed by the Project to comply with
the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation which has a goal of No Net Loss of wetland function on
federal lands and waters. Additionally, AREVA used threshold values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
sulphur dioxide (SO2) concentrations from the World Health Organization to assess Project effects on
vegetation quality. AREVA applied a confidence rating of low, moderate or high to any predicted
residual effects; this rating took into account baseline data, effectiveness of mitigation measures, and
understanding of known responses of the measurable parameters to predicted effects.
AREVA predicted with high confidence that the potential Project changes to vegetation abundance
and community diversity within the LAAs would not be significant. AREVA noted that due to the lack
of established thresholds for determining the effects of dust deposition on vegetation quality it
predicted with medium confidence that changes to vegetation quality would not be significant and
would be contained within the LAAs. AREVA proposed multiple mitigation measures within the FEIS to
reduce Project effects on vegetation as well as a monitoring program to monitor any changes in
vegetation quality.
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, AREVA summarized that:
About 81 hectares of vegetation adjacent to the Kiggavik mine site could be exposed to air
emissions. Dust deposition can affect about 20 hectares at the Kiggavik and 16 hectares at the
Sissons mine sites. A change in the metals concentration relative to baseline conditions is not
107
expected. Effects on vegetation quality as a result of exposure to emissions and dust from the
project are expected to be not significant.238
AREVA concluded within its presentation at the Final Hearing that there were no outstanding issues
regarding the management of terrain, soils, and vegetation effects, and that it considered that its
proposed air quality monitoring plan contained sufficient details on monitoring for potential changes
from emissions, potential acid input, dust deposition, or changes in soil quality and vegetation.
4.11.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
The Government of Nunavut (GN) and Environment Canada (EC) both commented on lichen in their
respective final written submissions. The GN observed that additional grey literature on potential
phytotoxic levels of selected metals of interest in lichen would aid in the understanding of the
potential for adverse Project impacts on lichen. EC concluded that there was a high level of
uncertainty related to the lichen assessment and noted that it would be beneficial to include effects
on the abundance and diversity of lichen species.239 Both the GN and EC recommended that AREVA
include monitoring and a study of the effects of the Project on lichen species, including the potential
effects of radiation on lichen species from air-deposited radionuclides. The GN further noted that the
monitoring program should be established throughout the life of the Project to validate whether
predicted concentrations are reasonably accurate and to gather information related to changes in
abundance/diversity of lichens in the absence of phytotoxicity data.240 AREVA referred the GN and EC
to Volume 6 Section 9 of the FEIS for its vegetation quantity and quality effects assessment, noting
also that the effects assessment for vegetation and the Air Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
(Volume 4 Appendix 4C) outlined its commitment to monitoring both the abundance and diversity of
the vegetation community and vegetation chemistry.241
The GN noted in its final written submission that the preliminary decommission plan provided limited
information on plans for re-vegetation of disturbed habitat. The GN observed that, although AREVA
proposed to encourage the re-vegetation of mines sites through the use of various augmentations
such as replacement of topsoil, seeding with native plant species, and addition of fertilizers, it was
unclear if the only proposed mitigation measure for the all-season access road (if used) would be
scarification. The GN requested that AREVA clarify whether it proposed any additional mitigation
measures for the access road alternative during reclamation. The GN also commented on AREVA’s
proposed five year post-decommissioning monitoring period followed by a transition to a long-term,
campaign style monitoring program, noting that re-vegetation of disturbed areas in the Arctic could be
a long process; the GN inquired as to whether AREVA planned to monitor until self-sustaining
vegetation communities were established at all disturbed sites. Challenges encountered by Agnico
Eagle Mine Limited’s Meadowbank Gold Mine in the usage of reclaimed soil were cited by the GN, as it
inquired whether these experiences had been taken into account in AREVA’s reclamation plans,
238
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 179, lines 18-25.
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 7-10.
240
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p. 64.
241
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-240.
239
108
including a discussion on avoidance.242 During the Final Hearing, the GN noted that AREVA responded
satisfactorily to its concern regarding lichen monitoring and reclamation plans.
In its written response, AREVA noted that its approach would be to reclaim disturbed areas as soon as
an area is not actively used and the proposed re-vegetation research program would be used to
validate assumptions related to predictions of long-term performance of decommissioned facilities.
AREVA acknowledged that site specific research would be needed to optimize predictions such as the
ability to re-use stockpiled topsoil and overburden for reclamation. AREVA further noted that the key
activity for the 5-year post-decommissioning period would be to assess re-vegetation success.243
Within its final written submission, EC observed that the loss of vegetation and subsequent mitigation
measures would have a direct impact on wildlife species in the Project area, including migratory birds
and species at risk. EC noted that the Proponent would reduce Project effects on vegetation (and
subsequently on wildlife) in part by using progressive reclamation; however, similar to the GN’s
comment on the Proponent’s preliminary decommission plan, EC indicated that the reclamation
component and what portion of ecological landscape classification (ELC) units would be reclaimed was
unclear. Effects on some ELC Units, including wetlands, might be long-term or permanent depending
on how the Units were to be incorporated into the final reclamation plan. EC recommended that
AREVA incorporate wetlands into the reclaimed landscape to provide a diversity of habitats (upland
and lowland) for wildlife following Project decommissioning. EC further recommended reclamation
planning target a similar type and proportion of wetlands on the reclaimed landscape as occurred
prior to disturbance; and to monitor the success of wetland reclamation and wildlife use of reclaimed
areas following an adaptive management approach.244
AREVA responded by noting that specific re-vegetation plans for reclamation would be developed as
part of the Detailed Decommissioning Plan for decommissioning licensing for the Project. For the
operations period, AREVA outlined a plan to progressively reclaim disturbed areas no longer in use.
Further, AREVA committed to considering the addition of a wetland reclamation component to the revegetation research program proposed to test various techniques at the reclaimed areas.245
The BQCMB noted that the assessment lacked sufficient detail regarding the duration of uptake in
lichens and the potential impacts to caribou from eating potential contaminated lichen. The BQCMB
also observed that concerns regarding potential damage to vegetation that could be used by caribou
as a food source had been raised by communities. It was further explained that this would include
reduced nutritional value as a result of dust and contamination resulting from radioactivity, with the
suggested mitigation consisting of dust control. The BQCMB noted that no specific monitoring was
listed by AREVA to cover vegetation monitoring.246 AREVA noted that a draft Air Quality Monitoring
Plan had been developed.247
242
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 87-89.
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-274.
244
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 29-32.
245
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-164.
246
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 30-32.
247
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-79.
243
109
During the Final Hearing a NIRB member requested clarification from the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission’s (CNSC) regarding its experience at other mines and whether it would be safe to
consume caribou (including organs and stomach content) that had grazed on the lichen in the vicinity
of the mine area, fish that may have been exposed to effluent in Judge Sissons Lake and berries
around the mine area.248 The CNSC indicated that all food and water that is consumed by wildlife
would be safe to consume as the levels released by the mine would be very low.249 Another Board
member requested clarification on whether AREVA had experience with regards to how tundra plants
respond to contaminants and how it the same could be distributed through the food chain.250 The
Board member further inquired whether AREVA, the CNSC or EC were aware of any independent
toxicology research completed for plants in uranium mining areas such as the existing Saskatchewan
sites.251 AREVA indicated that the tundra plants would not come in contact with any contaminants
from the tailings at the proposed Project sites, noting also that EC and Health Canada had conducted
an independent study related to radionuclides.252
A community member from Coral Harbour noted concern with revegetation and questioned AREVA on
its experience, stating:
… have you guys done any mine work north of 60s, and if so, have -- have you guys had any
time to see how much vegetation growth is different from the southern part of the world?
Because when you -- when you show pictures like this or how a mine is operating and the
aftermath of cleaning it up -- like everything's green already. Like, there are a lot of -vegetation up here that once you destroy them, it doesn't take a year or two to regrow. It
takes -- it takes several years sometimes. Like -- and it -- I think this calls for a lot of the
vegetation or the -- like -- like, you cannot grow green grass overnight, that type of stuff. So I - I'm just curious as -- to see if you guys had -- have any -- done any studies on the impact that
the land will have in the aftermath of cleaning up? 253
A community member from Baker Lake further questioned AREVA on how long it would take for revegetation to be completed after the mine is decommissioned.254 AREVA described its experience at a
Saskatchewan mine site with re-establishment of vegetation, while also noting that the climate is
different at the Kiggavik site and the Project would face challenges with re-vegetation during final
closure. If further noted that natural re-vegetation had occurred at old drill sites but that had been
over a 15- to 20-year period.255
248
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p. 1052, lines 10-12.
S. Mihok, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1053, lines 4-15.
250
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1612, lines 10-17.
251
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p. 1804, lines 17-22.
252
A. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1612-1613, lines
19-26 and 1-5; March 11, 2015, p. 1806, lines 21-26 and 1-13.
253
D. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1488, lines 319.
254
T. C. Noah, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1973, lines 23-25.
255
A. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1488-1489, lines
21-26 and 1-15; March 12, 2015, p. 1973, lines 7-12.
249
110
4.11.3
Views of the Board
The Board agrees with the GN and EC recommendations respecting study and monitoring of the
effects of the Project on lichen species being required, including potential radiation effects on lichen
species due to air deposited radionuclides. Since lichen serve as a food source for caribou, careful
study of project effects on lichen would lead to improved understanding of Project impacts on caribou.
The Board further notes that Inuit Qaujimaningit shared through the Final Hearing does not accept
that dust dispersion from the mine sites would be as limited in geographical extent as described by the
Proponent. The monitoring program presented by AREVA was based on the scientific understanding
that dust from the mine sites would not fall far from the site, justifying AREVA’s planned limiting of the
monitoring sites in geographic extent and potentially excluding impacts that might be observed to
vegetation. The Board emphasizes that integration of Inuit Qaujimaningit is necessary with regards to
the assessment of potential impacts on vegetation, even where Inuit Qaujimaningit does not align
with scientific predictions regarding the geographic extent of dust dispersal.
4.11.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit vegetation impacts having regard to information presented in any future project
proposal. The NIRB is confident that the CNSC’s regulatory regime can control mine and mill
contributions to vegetation impacts, and is sufficiently robust to limit, so far as possible, mine and mill
contributions to vegetation impacts. Should a future Project advance to CNSC regulatory review, the
Board encourages the CNSC to integrate Inuit Qaujimaningit into its regulatory process by
endeavouring to facilitate the participation of Inuit from affected communities in Nunavut.
4.12 Terrestrial Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
4.12.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential effects of the Project on terrestrial wildlife and wildlife habitat in
Volume 6, Section 11 of the FEIS and provided baseline information in Volume 6, Appendix 6C Wildlife Baseline and proposed mitigation measures in Appendix 6D - Wildlife Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for its effects assessment
terrestrial wildlife and wildlife habitat include:

Project footprint — The area of direct physical disturbance by the Project including the access
road options, the Baker Lake dock, and the storage facility.

Local Assessment Area (LAA) – Defined as being approximately 5 kilometres buffer
surrounding the Kiggavik and Sissons deposits and all proposed facilities in the area, with total
dimension of the mine LAA being 450 square kilometres (km2). The access road portions of
the LAA include a 5 km-wide buffer centered on the all-season access road alignment and
winter road alignment. The All-Season Access Road has a total LAA of 520 km². The Winter
Road has a total LAA of 561 km². Other potential facilities included within the road alignments
include a dock facility at Baker Lake and potential quarry sites.
111


Regional assessment area (RAA) —Defined to characterize Project effects and effect
significance at a biologically relevant spatial scale that varies depending on the wildlife
indicator and measurable parameter being assessed.
o
Mortality risk RAA was developed based on the probability of increased mortality risk
for wildlife encountering Project facilities.
o
Movement RAA was developed based on possible wildlife encounters with Project
facilities, the possible effects on natural movement patterns and/or effects on energy
resulting from changes to movement patterns.
o
Wolf Habitat Effects RAA was defined as being the area approximately 25 km buffer
from the edge of all proposed facilities, including the Sissons and Kiggavik mine zones,
proposed access road options, and facilities near Baker Lake. A wider buffer was
established along the northern edge of the Project area to encompass the Thelon
River, including portions of Aberdeen, Qamaniq, and Schultz lakes, and several
identified caribou crossing areas along the Thelon River. The area also includes all of
Judge Sissons Lake and southern portions of Aberdeen and Schultz lakes. Water
crossings on the east and west sides of Shultz Lake are included in the RAA. The
general RAA is 150 km long and 70 km wide, for a total area of 9,828 km2.
o
Caribou habitat effects RAAs was defined as being the area for the growing season
range for the Qamanirjuaq caribou (394,930 km²) and the winter range for the Ahiak
caribou. The general RAA for caribou has an approximate total area of 600,686 km².
o
Muskox habitat effects RAA was defined as being the muskox management unit
MX/21. That management encompasses the Kiggavik Project activities. The roughly
rectangular area extends from the northern shores of Schultz, Qamaniq and Aberdeen
lakes, south along the western shore of Mallery Lake to northwest of Tulemalu Lake,
north of Yathkyed Lake, and west of Baker Lake. This management unit is
approximately 31,872 km2.
Cumulative Effects Assessment Area – Focused on caribou habitat and movement with
seasonal ranges used to characterize cumulative effects to habitat and movement. The
Project Inclusion List developed included the traditional ranges of the Beverly and
Qamanirjuaq caribou, and the known ranges of the Ahiak, Lorillard and Wager Bay herds.
AREVA considered the potential Project effects on increased mortality, reduced habitat availability,
seasonal movements, and change in health as a result of ingestion of contaminants for its effects
assessment. AREVA noted that as there were no standards or existing thresholds for determining
significance of Project effects on caribou and muskox, it used experience and lessons learned from
other northern project assessments, and concluded that its significant determination for potential
Project effects would be based on the long-term viability of a population or delays to its recovery.
AREVA noted that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit provided information on wildlife presence, behaviour, and
habitat use to supplement and inform historical and regional data.
AREVA concluded in its FEIS that the selection of the winter road option was key to mitigating many of
the potential Project effects on terrestrial wildlife and raptors as well as caribou and muskox. AREVA
proposed a number of compliance and environmental monitoring measures that it included in a
proposed Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and further committed at the Final Hearing to
“implement a number of control measures to limit mortality along an access road. These actions
112
include controlled public access, no-hunting buffers, temporary shutdowns, and reduced speed
limits.”256
AREVA concluded that the proposed winter road would result in not significance effects on both
caribou and muskox populations; however, additional harvesting from the proposed winter road could
result in increased stress and the potential for cumulative effects, which would require mitigation and
management intervention by management authorities. AREVA used a conservative assessment of the
Qamanirjuaq herd and concluded that the Project would have little effect on caribou energetics and
no measureable effect on population projections through 2040. During the Final Hearing, AREVA
summarized its proposed monitoring efforts within its Terrestrial Wildlife presentation by noting that
it would “implement ground-based monitoring, such as height-of-land surveys, particularly during the
post-calving season” and “monitor caribou approaching water crossings that are within 10 kilometres
of project activities and manage disturbing activities when caribou are present”.256
AREVA predicted that Project activities could potentially affect the availability of wolf denning habitat
within the RAA and consequently assessed wolf den sites and the health of wolves. AREVA noted that
the magnitude of the Project effects were predicted to be moderate during construction, operation,
and final closure phases. AREVA further predicted that the Project would result in residual effects to
wolf habitat, however, the potential effects would not extend beyond the RAA. AREVA indicated it
expected that wolves would continue have den sites with the RAA and therefore determined the
potential Project effects would not be significant. AREVA rated its confidence in this prediction as
moderate due the few den observations in the baseline studies and the secretive nature of wolves.
Grizzly bear and wolverine were selected as two of three key species to represent Species at Risk in
the regional assessment area. Short-eared owl was the third key species and is discussed in Section
4.13: Birds and Bird Habitat. Key issues related to grizzly bear and wolverine were noted to be projectrelated effects on habitat availability, such as site clearing, mine operation, road construction and
milling and effects on health such as dust effect. Due to a lack of published standards or thresholds
for determining effect significance for grizzly bear and wolverine, AREVA again used the experience
from professional opinion, other northern mining projects, and the relatively low number of
occurrences of these two species in the region and concluded that a significant effect would be based
on whether the effect influences the long-term viability of the regional population or delays its
recovery. For the assessment of health of the two special status species, the estimated exposure to
both non-radioactive contaminants and radioactivity received by the biota, considering both baseline
and Project emissions, was compared to levels that were protective of mammals and birds. AREVA
noted that results from studies showed that it was not expected that the exposure of grizzly bear and
wolverine to constituents of potential concern (COPC) would exceed exposure levels associated with
adverse health effects in mammals. Therefore, no adverse health effects were expected on Species at
Risk.
As a result of questioning from the KIA during the Final Hearing, AREVA clarified that although its
wildlife impact assessment as presented in the FEIS had not specifically assessed ease of hunting or
256
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 187, lines 22-26.
113
increased difficulty in hunting, the terrestrial wildlife assessment had instead considered the potential
changes in caribou distribution, movement, and habitat within the project’s Zone of Influence (ZOI).257
During the Final Hearing, AREVA posted 4 maps, which were collectively entered into evidence258,
which used the most recent GN caribou collar information available during the assessment and noted
that these were slightly altered from those presented within AREVA’s FEIS to illustrate the caribou
range and movements.259
4.12.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association’s (NTI/KIA) joint final written
submission noted that Baker Lake community members still depend on caribou for food, and that
regulation of caribou harvest along either of the proposed access roads could lead to a lower caribou
harvest.260 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit collected for the FEIS noted that the Project area would not be
within the caribou calving ground but elders would suggest that calving grounds are variable which
suggests limited certainty that the Project would not affect caribou calving grounds. Further, NTI/KIA
noted that the road options as proposed would be constructed on traditional caribou migration
routes, which would lead to a potential loss of access and use of the area by caribou. NTI/KIA
predicted that as a result, harvesters could encounter less caribou, as well as experience increased
concern about potential contamination of caribou and their habitat, which could result in further
limiting hunting in the area.261 AREVA noted in its response to written submissions that it had made
commitments within its FEIS to continue incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, the principles of Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit, as well as the strategies that it would implement in the analysis of potential
project effects, mitigation and monitoring programs throughout the life of the Project.
Within their respective Final Written Submissions, NTI/KIA, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou
Management Board (BQCMB) and Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN) expressed concern about the
thresholds for significance determination used for caribou in the FEIS, noting that the integrity of the
population was not clearly defined, and that it was unclear whether viability equated to sustainability.
NTI/KIA further noted that the lack of clarity further obscured the ability to assess the potential
cumulative effects of the Project on caribou. During the Final Hearing, AREVA clarified in a direct
response to a question by the KIA that for the purpose of the significance determination it had
considered the entire range of the herd in relation to the amount of habitat lost from the project
footprint to determine the herd’s ‘viability’, which it defined as “the ability of a population to
persist.”262 During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers
257
AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 4, 2015, pp. 75-76.
AREVA, Exhibit 66, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015.
259
K. Lambrecht, NIRB Legal Counsel, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 21552156, lines 22-26 and 1-4.
260
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015,
pp. 9-22.
261
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015,
pp. 21-22.
262
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 229-230, lines 523 and 3-14.
258
114
Organization (Baker Lake HTO) also commented on AREVA’s significance determination for potential
Project effects on caribou, and noted that despite AREVA’s determination within the FEIS that the
proposed habitat loss would be small, or not significant, as compared to the entire herd’s range, that
from the hunter’s perspective, it would be quite large and may destroy a hunters’ entire hunting
grounds.263 AREVA responded by noting the assessment looked at the habitat available and potential
loss within the entire range of three caribou herds.
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita) expressed the same concerns as NTI/KIA with AREVA’s
definition of significance threshold species for wildlife species harvested by Inuit. Makita noted its
belief that the significance threshold selected by AREVA was inappropriate for wildlife used for
subsistence harvesting.264 AREVA responded that it had explained the methodology used to consider
harvester perspectives and knowledge in the assessment of effects was detailed in Volume 3 Part 2
Section 3.6 and throughout all the volumes Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Traditional Knowledge had
been incorporated. Additionally AREVA presented the criteria used in its analysis during its 2010
Kivalliq Open House Tour and consulted with Elders.265 During the Final Hearing, Makita stated in
relation to what it determined to be a lack of impact assessment of harvester access to caribou in the
FEIS, that “[t]o Inuit, being able to reasonably access these herds is a very significant threshold.”266
Within their respective Final Written Submissions, the NTI/KIA, Government of Nunavut (GN), the
BQCMB and LKDFN outlined concerns that the wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (WMMP) as
proposed was inadequate/deficient and further detail would be required to minimize the potential
impacts to wildlife. Much of the required mitigation and monitoring had been left to government ledregional monitoring programs and appeared to be lacking in input from Inuit Quajimajatuqangit
holders. Parties noted that the Proponent should further develop its WMMP to include details on the
scope and design of mitigation and monitoring programs in consultation with the GN, the KIA, the
Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (HTO) and other relevant parties. The GN supported
AREVA’s commitment to coordinating with current regional collaring programs and herd levels surveys
including a proposed Hunter Harvest Study (HHS), but noted a limitation in that the current regional
collaring programs were not designed to meet the monitoring needs of individual development
projects. The GN further clarified that it would be AREVA’s responsibility to undertake a wildlife
harvest monitoring for the purpose of testing the Project’s impact predictions and that the Hunter
Harvest Study (HHS) as proposed required review and revision to ensure it met the monitoring
objectives of the WMMP, recommending that AREVA consult with the GN and other stakeholders to
ensure a robust plan.267 The GN also recommended that if the Project be allowed to proceed, AREVA
should work with the GN on an agreement that defines its support of projects, or if an agreement
cannot be reached, AREVA should explore alternatives to meet the Project’s monitoring needs and
obligations.
263
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 225-226, lines 24-26 and 1.
264
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 9.
265
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-443.
266
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1165, lines 17-19.
267
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 75-77.
115
The GN further noted that at Agnico Eagle Mine Limited’s Meadowbank Gold Mine and other
development sites, the encroachment of road infrastructure into previously undeveloped habitat can
and does lead to profound changes in harvesting activity.268 In addition, the GN, as well as the
BQCMB, noted that alterations in caribou seasonal migratory movements or localized movement
patterns would constitute a significant potential impact of the Project, and noted that there were a
number of deficiencies in the FEIS that made the impact conclusion of “not significant” uncertain.
Parties recommended that on-going monitoring of caribou, using an appropriately designed
monitoring plan to detect potential effects, would be necessary. Lastly, the GN recommended that
AREVA revise its cumulative effects assessment for the different road options after completion of the
road plan.269
Within its written response, AREVA noted it agreed with the GN’s request to collaborate in support of
an integrated approach to monitoring both from a Project perspective and Nunavut perspective as
well. AREVA acknowledged that although its WWMP was not complete, the information provided in
the FEIS was sufficient to inform a decision under the NIRB process. It was AREVA’s position that the
HHS was most appropriately led by organizations with harvest responsibility under the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement and that AREVA should engage and collaborate in the delivery of the study. AREVA
agreed that a Public Access and Monitoring Management Plan could be developed and further
committed to provide a draft document for review prior to construction, which would include
measures to monitor winter traffic on the proposed winter road. AREVA did not agree, however, that
it should revise its wildlife cumulative effects assessment for both road options as it had already
provided the cumulative energetics assessment of the Qamanirjuaq herd within its FEIS. AREVA noted
that it expected to sign an agreement for an effective wildlife monitoring program with the Baker Lake
HTO. AREVA further noted that did not expect other industrial users on the road and that it would be
responsible for enforcing its mitigation measures if there were to be any potential future industrial
use. With regards to public access to the proposed all-season access road option, AREVA explained
that if selected, all-terrain vehicles would be restricted and a gatehouse constructed at the start of the
road in Baker Lake only.270 During the Final Hearing, AREVA responded to parties’ concerns by noting
that it agreed in principle to the recommendations, subject to recognition of overall GN responsibility
for general and regional monitoring.271,272
The Baker Lake HTO requested in its Final Written Submission that AREVA contract the HTO to monitor
caribou and other wildlife along all roads and near the Project site, cease operations when caribou
migrate through the area, put in place dust suppression methods on all roads, and participate in GN
caribou studies.273 AREVA responded to Baker Lake HTO’s requests by again offering to meet to
develop and implement an access road management plan and referred the Baker Lake HTO to the
Draft Road Access Management Plan.274
268
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 88-92.
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 100-103.
270
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-53 - 2-54.
271
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-280 - 2-281.
272
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-80 - 2-82.
273
Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015.
274
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-43 - 2-46.
269
116
During the Final Hearing, the GN requested that AREVA clarify when it intended to engage and
complete a regional monitoring agreement with the GN; AREVA responded that it intended to start
development of a potential agreement at the commencement of, or just prior to, project
development. The KIA noted during the Final Hearing that the WMMP did not include wildlife
monitoring along the winter roads and questioned AREVA regarding what plans would be put in place
to mitigate impacts on caribou movements and hunter harvest in these areas and to verify the
predictions that the winter road would not affect hunting patterns.275 AREVA noted that the HHS
would be the sole mechanism for tracking wildlife sightings and behaviour along the winter road or
the all-season access road options.276 The Baker Lake HTO further noted that current HHS related to
the Meadowbank Gold Mine monitoring program are contracted out by Agnico Eagle, and that the
Baker Lake HTO participates by providing statistics and hunting data.277 During the Final Hearing, the
GN further stressed that:
Many participants in this hearing have raised or will raise significant concerns about impacts to
caribou. In its review of the final environmental impact statement, the Government of
Nunavut concluded that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential impacts to
caribou. The Government of Nunavut feels that this uncertainty can be reduced through
appropriate monitoring -- I'll say that again, appropriate monitoring and mitigation for
caribou.278
A community representative from Coral Harbour requested clarification on whether any other caribou
studies other than collaring have been conducted by the BQCMB or any of the wildlife management
boards.279 The BQCMB indicated that
[t] here [had] been collaring programs [conducted] for a couple of the herds, but the only other
work done with caribou is some [..] conditioning sampling. And that's through our on-the-lake,
on-the-land camps. We provide, like, $5,000 or so to different local school groups, and they
take the elders out and the school kids out on the land, and they show them, practice
traditional skills, and at the same time, they do some body conditioning sampling, looking for
parasites and showing the students how to field dress caribou and that sort of thing. But that's
the only -- only other work that we've done with caribou.280
With their final written submissions, NTI/KIA and the BQCMB requested that AREVA establish a site
specific and road related monitoring program for uranium, metals, and radionuclides in snow and
caribou fecal pellets. The CNSC similarly noted within its Final Written Submission that for some
wildlife pathways, baseline tissue chemistry data remain scarce, especially in an arctic context for all
275
K. Poole, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 207,
lines 1-6.
276
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p 207, lines 2-25 .
277
R. Aksawnee, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 9, 2015, p. 1288, lines 12-17.
278
B. MacIsaac, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p.
1764, lines 16-24.
279
D. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 2063, lines 2-5
280
E. Evans, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 2063, lines 9-21.
117
tissues and contaminants, and that refinement of AREVA’s models through future field monitoring
should be sufficient to verify predictions. The CNSC further noted that it considered AREVA’s
commitment to work collaboratively with local hunters to gather additional tissue chemistry
information to help fill some data gaps for wildlife to be acceptable.281 NTI/KIA asked for an
explanation on the use of berries, lichen, caribou, fecal pellets, soil and snow for monitoring, as
neither have actual standards or acceptable levels associated with contamination, to determine
whether any measurements are significant or have changed in a significant way282. In response,
AREVA indicated that it periodically uses the data in a re-evaluation of the ecological and human
health risk assessment to confirm that the exposures are consistent. Essentially, the information
collected feeds back into the ecology risk assessment on a periodic basis to ensure that the original
predictions remain valid.283 During AREVA’s presentation at the Final Hearing, it committed that
“[o]ther samples, such as snow, berries, lichen, caribou fecal pellets, and soil, will be collected for
chemical analysis.”284
In response to the NIRB request to clarify the statistics of expected traffic along the road, AREVA
explained that it used the statistics presented in Meadowbank’s 2013 annual report and noted that
the highest reported usage rate of the road occurred in the month of September at 639 ATV trips 285.
In addition to the potential amount of public traffic, the KIA requested that AREVA clarify how it would
manage potential collision risks with caribou resulting from the amount of mine traffic projected for
the winter road, which would be in service for approximately a 90-day period, and have up to 38-40
truck transits per day, later clarified to be 80 one-way truck trips per day286. AREVA described that
management of collisions or encounters of caribou would be done by implementing the proposed
caribou collision matrix, or wildlife decision matrix, which is a list of instructions given to drivers to
stop when caribou are crossing the road(s) with further closure of road(s) if a migration event were to
occur. Upon further questioning from the Hamlet of Baker Lake on its ability to sustain a multi-day
road closure287, which hunters have consistently experienced around the area, AREVA noted that it its
plans are conservative and would be able to accommodate multi-day closure of the road without
affecting mine business.288 During the Final Hearing, a community member from Rankin Inlet
requested clarification regarding whether work at the mine site would be stopped when caribou are
migrating nearby or if other animals are near the site. The community member wanted to ensure that
caribou are not disturbed by mine activities.289 AREVA noted that mitigation would be in place to
monitor the progress of caribou and to take actions to avoid disturbing the caribou.
281
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Final Written Submissions, January 17, 2015, p. 21.
T. van der Vooren, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, p. 140,
lines 1-11.
283
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, p. 140, lines 14-26.
284
J. Kirkaldy, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 3, 2015, p. 100, lines 1-3.
285
D. Martens, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 247, lines 20-26.
286
K. Poole, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 204, lines 1-4 and 8-11.
287
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 222,
lines 16-23.
288
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 222-223, lines 26
and 1-11.
289
J. Kabvitok, Rankin Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1947, lines 13-22.
282
118
The Hamlet of Baker Lake requested clarification regarding who would be monitoring caribou, and
stated:
I'll be speaking regards to the caribou movement. They don't stay in one area. Like, this -- this
is directed to everybody around the -- sitting around the table. Who is going to be responsible
in monitoring the movement of the caribous? Which company? I know for sure that they
cannot stay in one spot. I heard someone saying that they can travel -- travel at least -- over a
hundred miles per day. I just wanted to get clarification on this.290
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA proposed that as a result of a recent change of
classification of GN’s caribou collar data by herd, there was the potential for a large degree of
uncertainty of movement, distribution, and resulting identification of potential impacts to caribou in
the region. The GN added that there were limitations to the data as a result of only a few female and
no male caribou collared and concluded that collar locations cannot be considered representative of
entire herd movement. As a result, NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA explain how the changes in
regional herd definitions by the GN affect the assessment conclusions and how the lack of access to
GN collared data for the five caribou herds potentially overlapping the regional area would affect the
conclusions of its impact assessment. AREVA acknowledged in its response to Final Written
Submissions that the change in herd definitions and limitations in collar data did create uncertainty in
its assessment conclusions; however AREVA intended to incorporate updates to the data into the
Project’s Environmental Management Plan.
Within its Final Written Submission and during its presentation at the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake
HTO outlined several concerns regarding the Kiggavik proposal and the potential impacts to caribou,
caribou calving and post-calving grounds, and culturally significant areas. The Baker Lake HTO noted
concern that if AREVA was allowed to proceed it would open it up for other uranium mines in the area
which could lead to disturbing “the most important caribou habitat in places that are culturally
important.”291 It further requested that mining be banned in these areas. The Baker Lake HTO noted
it believed AREVA’s impact studies on wildlife to be insufficient and not reflective of the values,
priorities of Inuit and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. The Baker Lake HTO further noted that hunters were
observing impacts on caribou and harvesting from the all-weather access road associated with the
Meadowbank Gold Mine Project in that caribou are moving away from the area.292 The Baker Lake
HTO noted additional concern regarding the potential overlap impacts to caribou from industry:
We have to have proper rules before Kiggavik is approved, because there's nothing to protect
our own livelihood, the caribou. We have noticed that they are impacted already, even before
you start. 293
290
T. Anirniq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, pp. 20322033, lines 23-26 and 1-8.
291
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, pp. 1247, lines 1-2.
292
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, pp. 1246-1249, lines 16-26, 1-26, 1-26, 1-26 and 1-4.
293
J. Scottie, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 1501, lines 7-10.
119
In its response to Final Written Submissions, AREVA noted that land use planning related to caribou
resource management would be directed to NTI, the KIA, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada, the GN, and the Nunavut Planning Commission, but that it had presented in the
FEIS its company policy and the regulatory framework for the Kiggavik Project294.
During the Final Hearing the Baker Lake HTO noted concern regarding AREVA’s lack of a project start
date, noting the assessment would be outdated, especially for caribou.295 The Baker Lake HTO further
disagreed with the ‘GN’s sunset clause’ of ten years and indicated that baseline data would be
outdated by then:
… caribou herds can clearly decline very significantly in a three-year time span. The recent
decline of the Bathurst caribou herd is a perfect example. Between 2006 and 2009, the herd
went from 128,000 animals to 32,000 animals. This is a 75 percent decline over three years.
Clearly these conditions can change much more rapidly than ten years.296
The Baker Lake HTO further requested, as in previous stages of the NIRB process, that AREVA provide
the HTO with additional funds to re-instate aerial surveys to monitor annual caribou calving and to aid
in determining the location of calving.297 In response, AREVA noted its continued interest in engaging
the Baker Lake HTO for collaborative monitoring; however, no clear commitment was made to the
request. AREVA further noted that it wanted to “demonstrate [its] confidence in the environmental
assessment at this Hearing.”298
The Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN) in its Final Written Submission noted an issue with AREVA’s
population modelling as presented within its FEIS. AREVA’s FEIS model used a starting population of
350,000 caribou, and the LKDFN recommended that given the uncertainty of the Project’s start date,
additional scenarios be required that use a variety of starting populations.299 AREVA noted in its
Response to Final Written Submissions that uncertainties did exist in the modelling, but that it
considered the information presented to be sufficient for the environmental assessment process.
During the Final Hearing, the BQCMB noted that:
… -- a huge piece of the puzzle that's missing here, because that will tell us, you know, is the
Qamanirjuaq herd declining, or is it – is it stable? What -- I don't think they have had any
numbers since 2008 right now, I think, if I remember. So it would be good if we can get those
numbers to NIRB for their decision.300
294
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-45.
W. Bernauer, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 9, 2015, pp. 1239-1241, lines 17-26, 1-26, and 1-13.
296
W. Bernauer, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 9, 2015, pp. 1239-1241, lines 7-13.
297
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 226-227, lines 26 and 1-5.
298
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 227, lines 17-22.
299
Lutsel K’e Dene First Nations Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 1-2.
300
E. Evans, Beverley and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1308-1309, lines 25-26 and 1-5.
295
120
The BQCMB commented in its final written submission that a high level of concern was shared by
caribou harvesters and communities from the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou ranges outside
Nunavut (e.g., the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) noting that it represented
roughly 20 different communities across the range. In the FEIS, AREVA indicated that increased
harvest of the Qamanirjuaq caribou in the Project area could cause change on harvest sustainability of
the herd. The BQCMB expressed concern for reduced availability of caribou for harvest as this had
already been experienced by communities outside Nunavut. Therefore, the BQCMB recommended a
strong precautionary approach be taken, as any residual effects projected to reduce sustainability
would also affect caribou harvesters outside of Nunavut.301 The Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land
Corporation and LKDFN shared similar comments. The BQCMB further noted that it considered the
assessment presented in the FEIS on caribou herds’ use of the Project area as unrealistic and
inadequate given the lack of scientific knowledge and concluded that the criteria and methods for
assessing significance, effects and cumulative effects on caribou did not adequately reflect the
perspectives, knowledge or needs of caribou harvesters and caribou-using communities. In response,
AREVA noted that it had included Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in its assessment and plans as well as the
energetics model from Tier 2 Volume 6 of the FEIS which included both natural and human-induced
stressors as disturbance on the Qamanirjuaq herd across its range within and without the Kiggavik
Project area. Additionally, AREVA noted it had provided a comprehensive assessment of potential
project and cumulative effects with consideration for continued availability and accessibility of caribou
for harvest.302,303
The BQCMB also discussed mortality rates of caribou and discussed AREVA’s assumptions on mortality
rates and harvest patterns and how AREVA acknowledged that this created uncertainty in its
environmental assessment. The BQCMB expressed concern that in a declining herd such as the
Qamanirjuaq herd, natural mortality rates would likely not be constant over time which changes the
context for Project-related deaths and harvesting. Further, the BQCMB commented that indirect
mortality could occur if cows were in poor condition from variation in forage and concluded that
mortality effects were under-estimated by AREVA with a high level of uncertainty.304 AREVA’s
response to this issue was to reiterate that it had committed to work with all stakeholders to discuss
and set priorities across the project-specific and regional scale and had also committed to operating to
standards such as the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.305
The BQCMB requested examples or clarification on how adaptive management would work between
the WMMP and the Environmental Management Plan.306 AREVA responded to the BQCMB that it
agreed in principle, but also noted that it was AREVA’s position that the information presented in the
FEIS was sufficient to inform an environmental decision under the NIRB process.307
301
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 20, 2015, pp. 19-20.
AREVA Responses to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-50 - 2-52.
303
AREVA Responses to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-425 - 2-426.
304
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 20, 2015, p. 29-30.
305
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-75 - 2-77.
306
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 20, 2015, pp. 28.
307
AREVA Response to Final Written Submission, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-69 - 2-70.
302
121
Finally the BQCMB commented on the issue of radioactivity and potential effects on health of caribou,
noting that in the FEIS caribou health was described relative to exposure to dust and radioactivity and
that deposition levels were predicted to about 12 kilometres from the Project footprint. The BQCMB
further noted that residual effects were not assessed by AREVA as it had concluded that residual
effects were less than toxicity levels and the level of exposure for caribou to most chemicals was not
expected to change from baseline, thus no monitoring was proposed in addition to monitoring of plant
fragments and ash analysis of fecal pellets. As such, the BQCMB requested that more information be
provided to assess residual effects for caribou health and recommended a re-assessment of uptake of
metals including uranium to determine under what conditions a caribou would have sufficient uptake
to produce a measurable effect.308 AREVA responded that the assumptions behind the assessment of
caribou exposure used in its analysis accounted for variability in behaviours and diet as well as other
underlying assumptions in the pathway assessment. AREVA accounted for uncertainty in movement
of caribou in its modelling and incorporated both food and water ingestion into its assessment as
well.309
The Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD) Final Written Submission noted its concerns
in regards to transboundary effects that could occur due to the potential of transport of yellowcake to
Points North and the opposition to transport of the product in this way. The concerns further noted
by the AD also stated that there would be impacts from the proposed all-season access road, which
would increase caribou mortality, and affect habitat, movement and health. The AD also noted the
absence of Athabasca Denesuline traditional knowledge in the assessment. It was noted that the
Athabasca Denesuline have observed how an all season road increases traffic from other areas to
caribou hunting grounds and increases hunting pressure to the herds and this in turn could affect their
way of life if caribou numbers decline further. The AD made a number of recommendations that it
wished to have included in AREVA’s cumulative effects assessment.310 AREVA responded to the AD by
noting it had included an energy-protein modelling framework in the FEIS and had used conservative
assumptions. This framework was included in the FEIS to advance discussions of cumulative effects
and provided important context to facilitate a decision on the FEIS.311 For further discussion on
transboundary effects, please refer to Section 6.8: Transboundary Effects.
The GN noted several issues related to carnivores in its Final Written Submission, noting that AREVA’s
FEIS did not include an assessment of carnivore mortality, yet in the North with even the most
proactive mitigation measures, increases in carnivore mortality rates occur due to vehicle collisions or
problem wildlife activity. The GN recommended that Project-related carnivore mortality would be an
important measurable parameter that should be monitored and mitigated; therefore AREVA should
develop thresholds of acceptable direct mortality for each carnivore species interacting with the
Project, include grizzly bears and wolverine in the Hunter Harvest Survey, support regional carnivore
research projects, and report to appropriate agencies.312 To this issue, AREVA responded in its
Response to Final Written Submissions that it agreed in principle with each of the GN’s
recommendations. The GN further noted that AREVA’s proposed wildlife encounter matrix was a good
308
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 20, 2015, p. 34-35.
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-83 - 2-85.
310
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 6-7.
311
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-39 - 2-40.
312
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 79-81.
309
122
starting point, but that additional protocols should be considered to reduce the probability of
encounters, and further recommended AREVA develop a site specific wildlife management plan which
takes into account all threats to human and wildlife welfare.
In its Response to Final Written Submissions, AREVA agreed with the recommendation made by the
GN. At the Final Hearing, NIRB board members requested clarification on compensation for wildlife
killed as a result of the project; AREVA responded by confirming that this would most likely be part of
the wildlife compensation within the Inuit Impacts and Benefits Agreement that would be negotiated
with the Kivalliq Inuit Association, though AREVA could not propose if or how this benefit would be
coordinated with the HTO.313
The GN noted in its Final Written Submission that the FEIS had not included an assessment of the
potential Project impacts on denning habitat of carnivores such as grizzly bear, wolf and wolverine,
and further advised that the Nunavut Wildlife Act Section 73(1) prohibits disturbance of these areas
without a license. The GN noted that AREVA had committed to collecting opportunistic observations
of den sites within three kilometres of the Project, but recommended AREVA undertake surveys within
the local assessment area immediately prior to construction to identify any dens, and seek appropriate
regulatory approval prior to undertakings.314 AREVA agreed with the GN’s recommendation.315
At the Final Hearing, NIRB staff questioned AREVA representatives on the lack of data regarding
wildlife dens along the area of the proposed all-season or winter road; AREVA noted that den surveys
had been conducted during the baseline surveys in 2008 to 2010 aerial surveys with on-the-ground
surveys done around sites being considered for potential quarry development. AREVA further noted
that it had committed to pre-construction surveys for den sites as well as required by the Nunavut
Wildlife Act.316
Related to timing of the project, the Final Written Submissions submitted by the GN, the Baker Lake
HTO, Makita and the Lutsel K’e all expressed concern over the uncertainty of commencement of
construction of the Kiggavik project. The parties acknowledged that there are uncertainties from an
economic perspective, noting however that a significant multi-year delay could result in the data that
is currently included in the FEIS, and the basis of AREVA’s impact assessment, being outdated for
terrestrial wildlife, specifically caribou. Parties noted other terrestrial wildlife populations in the
Kivalliq region are also undergoing changes in their range and abundance such as muskox and grizzly
bear. The GN recommended that if a significant multi-year lag develops, greater than 10 years,
between the effects assessment and the Project’s commencement that AREVA update the effects
assessment with up to date information to ensure conclusions within the FEIS remain valid.317
Due to the concerns that significant delays could render the impact assessment in the FEIS inaccurate,
AREVA’s significance determinations for impacts to caribou may not be realistic, and cumulative
313
P. Kadlun, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 263, lines 13-20.
Government of Nunavut Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 77-79.
315
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 260.
316
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 243-244, lines 523 and 3-14, lines 22-26 and 1-9.
317
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015 pp. 70-71.
314
123
effects conclusions may become outdated, the Baker Lake HTO and Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation
recommended that this assessment not be approved and a new assessment be initiated once a start
date for the Project is established. AREVA responded to all parties that it understood that there were
sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that such an assessment would take place in the event of the
Project being approved and a substantial lag to construction.318 One process that AREVA considered
important to enabling this information to be captured was the NIRB’s options under Section 12.8.2(b)
of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to reconsider the terms and conditions of a Project Certificate
either on its own or upon application by a Designated Inuit Organization, the proponent or other
interested parties. Further, if the Kiggavik project were approved, AREVA noted that it must apply for
a licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission pursuant to the Uranium Mines and Mills
Regulations. These regulations require AREVA to obtain a licence at each phase of the Project and
AREVA contended that this process evaluates information relating to the proposed work taking place,
the programs in place to identify, assess and mitigate environmental risks which validates project
efficiency and operational controls. Further, this licensing process includes environmental risk
assessments which are conducted to meet the requirements of the Canadian Standards Association
Standard N288.6-12 Environmental Risk Assessment at Class I Nuclear Facilities at Uranium Mines and
Mills.319,320 During the Final Hearing, AREVA expressed its opinion that an uncertain start date was a
standard practice with other mines operating in Nunavut, and considering the potential amount of
time before construction could begin for Kiggavik, that an on-the-ground survey would be conducted
at least two years prior to construction, but that a desktop-level study would be updated every ten
years.321
The Baker Lake HTO noted the importance of collecting Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit data especially with
the community members’ experience with Agnico Eagle Mines Limited and the observed impacts to
caribou, harvesting and vegetation from the mine(s).322
During the Final Hearing, Ms. Tagoona posed the following comment and questions regarding the
potential overlap of the proposed shipping route and caribou migration paths:
I have a cabin in the narrows, and I -- I know about the caribou migration, the crossing that
happens in mid to late August, as we depend on that caribou to survive for the year. My
question is relating to the barges. What is the process or policy set in place when they see that
the herds are going to cross over?323
In response, AREVA noted that it would apply the same measures as it would with traffic along either
the proposed winter or all-season access road, and that it proposed to employ a marine mammal
observer on board the vessels who would be responsible for advising the ship captain to halt the
vessel if migrating caribou were observed. In response to Ms. Tagoona’s inquiries AREVA confirmed
318
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-251 - 2-252
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-250 - 2-252.
320
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-423 - 2-424.
321
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 205, lines 6-21.
322
R. Aksawnee, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 5, 2015, p. 509.
323
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5,
2015, p. 417-418, lines 21-26 and 1.
319
124
that this operational requirement related to caribou management in a marine environment was not
explicitly included in its FEIS.
During the Final Hearing the Board noted concern with the potential for caribou to consume
vegetation that might be contaminated and asked AREVA how it would monitor caribou properly to
determine if they were becoming contaminated.324 AREVA noted that part of the proposed
environmental monitoring program included sampling of lichen around the site.325
During the Final Hearing, many community members raised concerns regarding the potential Project
impacts on caribou. A community representative from Repulse Bay (Naujaat) requested clarification
on why there was no mention of monitoring of other wildlife, stating:
Very briefly, there has been indication about monitoring of caribou. There are other land
animals such as wolves, wolverines, and grizzlies, and there are a lot of smaller animals that
are on the land, on the tundra. Why hasn't -- why hasn't -- there was no indication about the
smaller animals. Only caribou have been indicated.326
AREVA noted that its assessment included fur bearers such as wolverine and grizzly bears even though
it was not discussed in detail during the meetings.327
A community representative from Rankin Inlet stated:
I wonder, during their [AREVA] exploration, sometimes in summertime, we do have inspectors
to go to that site. There's evidence of caribou. There are a lot of caribou near that -- near that
site, and they're not afraid. Yes. At this time, they're not afraid. They're not -- are you going to
be stopping their work, when they're -- with the migration of caribou or when they -- when any
kind of animals are near that site, because when caribou are in the abundance of their habitat,
they tend to be in the same area for a number of days, and -- as long as the caribou are not
disturbed.328
A community member from Baker Lake noted:
Once the operations have started, there will be caribou that will be traversing through and
close to the mine site. There will be caribou migrating through some of the lakes that they go
drink water from close to the mine footprint. You'll notice when the caribou are running, you'll
-- you'll be smelling something that you have not smelled before. It was kinda surprise to me
that these -- both caribous were just licking some waste, which I've never seen before. I started
chasing these bulls that were licking the waste, sewage waste, because I thought they'd be
324
G. Alikut, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 614, lines 16-21.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 615, lines 16-25.
326
S. Malliki, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1666,
lines 12-18.
327
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1666-1667, lines
19-26 and 1.
328
J. Kabvitok, Rankin Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1947, lines 1123.
325
125
contaminated, tried to run them off from the area. Because I've never seen caribous, especially
bulls -- bull caribous licking wasted -- waste.329
A community representative from Coral Harbour asked AREVA:
if [caribou] moved further and if there's no caribou nearby, if the -- AREVA should start
building, how -- how would you try and get the caribou back to that area? Because you do
have new technology -- the technology now. How are you going to move the caribou back,
back to the area where they came from? Sometimes, our thinking ways are very different, and
mine is very different as well.330
AREVA noted that the Project has been designed to ensure caribou are impeded as little as possible
and that measures would be in place to minimize impacts from project activities on caribou.331
4.12.3
Views of the Board
It was very clear to the Board that Nunavummiut, especially Inuit, continue to rely on caribou as a
primary food source. Many were concerned that caribou would be adversely affected by the Project,
and that this would threaten this food source and also threaten harvesters’ ability to access wildlife to
continue traditional activities.
AREVA’s FEIS predicted that there were no significant adverse environmental effects upon caribou,
and AREVA defended this position at the Final Hearing. The FEIS itself noted many limitations in the
predictions, including that potential project effects on caribou movement are difficult to predict and
quantity,332 that no standards or thresholds exist for determining the significance of Project effects on
caribou,333 that there are no known or definitive habitat loss or disturbance thresholds specific to
barren ground caribou,334 that there are no prescribed thresholds for evaluation of Project effects on
caribou movements, and that predicting caribou behavioral responses is challenged by a lack of
empirical or conclusive behavioral data and how that may affect population-level movement.335
AREVA also referred to inconsistencies between Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, local knowledge, scientific
literature and unpublished government reports. The FEIS also suggested that cumulative effects to
caribou health are also difficult to quantify.336
Having regard to these limitations, the Board views the absence of a start date for the Project as
adversely affecting the confidence which the Board can place on the predictions about caribou in the
FEIS.
329
T. Oovayuk, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, pp. 19691970, lines 21-26 and 1-10.
330
M. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, pp. 2198-2199,
lines 22-26 and 1-15.
331
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, pp. 2199-2200, lines
17-26 and 1-3.
332
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-64.
333
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-4.
334
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-5.
335
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-5.
336
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-79.
126
The Board further notes that the lack of a decision on the proposed all-season access road provides for
many uncertainties associated with the prediction of road effects, including interference with wildlife
or displacement of caribou migration, and increased access for the general public to caribou
harvesting. The Board remains concerned that the all-season access road (if developed) represents a
potential for environmental effects which are difficult to accurately quantify given the current state of
baseline information respecting caribou and caribou behaviours.
4.12.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The lack of a clear start date for the proposed Project has adversely affected the Board’s confidence in
the assessment of Project effects to terrestrial wildlife. This lack of a definite start date aggravates
numerous issues in relation to assessing potential Project impacts to caribou including, but not limited
to: limitations in baseline information; thresholds for significance determination; criticisms of the
wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (WMMP); the capacity of multi-party monitoring programs to
be effective; the relationship of government regional collaring programs to monitoring needs of
individual development projects; uncertainty surrounding the effects of the proposed all-season
access road (if built); and cumulative effects.
Having regard to the evidence and opinions presented in the Final Written Submissions, and at the
Final Hearing, the Board does not accept that post-approval monitoring can adequately restore the
Board’s confidence in FEIS predictions about caribou that have been eroded by the absence of definite
start date for the Project within the FEIS.
Article 12.8.2(b) of the NLCA may allow NIRB to reconsider the terms and conditions contained in a
Project Certificate but, in the Board’s view, this ability does not restore the Board’s confidence in the
FEIS predictions. The onus of proof is on the Proponent and, having regard to the concerns about
Project effects on caribou expressed in written submissions and at the Final Hearing, reliance on NLCA
section 12.8.2(b) does not restore the confidence in FEIS predictions about caribou.
Further, the Board understands that the CNSC licencing process focusses on the uranium mine and mill
and areas in the immediate mine footprint. The CNSC itself pointed out that its jurisdiction was
limited, and that the CNSC jurisdiction in relation to licencing of the mine and mill would not be
sufficient to address all Project impacts. While the CNSC may well be able to regulate the matters
within its jurisdiction, that of itself does not restore the Board’s confidence in the confidence in FEIS
predictions about caribou.
The Board will revisit terrestrial wildlife and wildlife habitat impacts having regard to information
presented in any future project proposal.
127
4.13 Birds and Bird Habitat
4.13.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA divided its assessment of birds into raptors and migratory birds, which was presented in detail
in Volume 6, sections 15 and 16 of the FEIS. Mitigation measures for raptors and migratory birds were
included in Tier 3 Appendix 6D Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for its effects assessment on birds
and bird habitat:

Project footprint — The area of direct physical disturbance by the Project including the access
road options, the Baker Lake dock, and the storage facility.

Local Assessment Area (LAA) – Defined as being approximately 5 kilometres buffer
surrounding the Kiggavik and Sissons deposits and all proposed facilities in the area, with total
dimension of the mine LAA being square kilometres (km2). The access road portions of the
LAA include a 5 km-wide buffer centered on the all-season access road alignment and winter
road alignment. The All-Season Access Road has a total LAA of 520 km². The Winter Road has
a total LAA of 561 km². Other potential facilities included within the road alignments include a
dock facility at Baker Lake and potential quarry sites.

Regional assessment area (RAA) —Defined to characterize Project effects and effect
significance at a biologically relevant spatial scale that varies depending on the wildlife
indicator and measurable parameter being assessed.
o
Mortality risk RAA was developed based on the probability of increased mortality risk
for wildlife encountering Project facilities.
o
Movement RAA was developed based on possible wildlife encounters with Project
facilities, the possible effects on natural movement patterns and/or effects on energy
resulting from changes to movement patterns.337
o
General Habitat Effects RAA was developed to assess habitat effects on peregrine
falcon, lapland longspur, long-tailed duck, shorebirds and short-eared owl. The RAA
area is a 25 km buffer from the edge of all proposed facilities, including the Sissons
and Kiggavik mine zones, proposed access road options, and facilities near Baker Lake.
A wider buffer was established along the northern edge of the Project area to
encompass the Thelon River, including portions of Aberdeen, Qamaniq, and Schultz
lakes. The area also includes all of Judge Sissons Lake and southern portions of
Aberdeen and Schultz. The general RAA is 150 km long and 70 km wide, for a total
area of 9,828 km2.
AREVA defined the temporal boundary for the effects assessment to include all major Project phases,
including construction, operation, final closure, and post-closure. The total life span of the Project is
expected to be 25 years, with post-closure extending beyond the final closure phase.
337
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 11-30.
128
AREVA selected peregrine falcon as the indicator for the effects assessment on raptors. Activities
during construction, operation and closure were identified to have the potential to affect the habitat,
nest productivity and health of raptors in the RAA. Key issues related to effects on peregrine falcons
were identified as reduced habitat availability resulting in direct loss of foraging habitat and sensory
disturbances; reduced nest site productivity from sensory disturbances; and change in health due to
radionuclide and metal content transfer through the food chain. Due to the lack of published
standards or thresholds for determining effect significance for raptors, AREVA used the experience
from other northern mining projects and concluded that a significant effect would be determined by
whether the effect influences the long-term viability of the regional population or delays its
recovery.338
AREVA noted that effects of the Project are not anticipated to result in significant adverse effects on
raptor nest habitat. However, AREVA noted that the Project footprint would result in direct loss of
raptor foraging habitat and will mitigate the potential adverse effects on raptor habitat through
minimizing the Project footprint, reclaiming disturbed areas, minimizing dust and minimizing Project
activities outside of the footprint. AREVA further noted the Project is not anticipated to act
cumulatively with other projects to cause a biologically relevant reduction of habitat availability in the
region. The losses of habitat are noted to be minor and would not add substantially to cumulative
losses of habitat in the region.
For the migratory birds assessment, AREVA selected Lapland longspur and longtailed duck. Key issues
related to these species were noted to be project-related effects on habitat availability and health.
Due to a lack of published standards or thresholds for determining effect significance for migratory
birds, AREVA again used the experience from other northern mining projects and concluded that a
significant effect would be based on whether the effect influences the long-term viability of the
regional population or delays its recovery. AREVA noted that effects of the Project are not anticipated
to result in significant adverse effects on migratory bird habitat within the RAA. Further, AREVA noted
that the residual effects of the Project on changes in habitat availability would not be significant,
however, the effects could act cumulatively with similar effects from other human activity in the
region that affects migratory bird habitat.
A number of mitigation measures were proposed for raptors and migratory birds of which the
selection of the winter road was considered to be the most critical, as use of this option would mean
less traffic during the nesting season. AREVA also proposed a number of environmental policies and
mitigation measure to reduce potential Project effects and these were included in Tier 3 Appendix 6D
– Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
Short-eared owl was selected as a key species to represent Species at Risk in the regional assessment
area. Key issues related to short-eared owl were noted to be project-related effects on habitat
availability, such as site clearing, mine operation, road construction and milling and effects on health
such as dust effect. Due to a lack of published standards or thresholds for determining effect
significance for short-eared owl, AREVA again used the experience from other northern mining
projects, knowledge of short-eared owl ecology in arctic Canada, and the relatively low number of
338
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 15-4.
129
occurrences of the species in the region and concluded that a significant effect would be based on
whether the effect influences the long-term viability of the regional population or delays its recovery.
For the assessment of health short-eared owl, the estimated exposure to both non-radioactive
contaminants and radioactivity received by the biota, considering both baseline and Project emissions,
was compared to levels that were protective of mammals and birds. AREVA noted that effects of the
Project would result in loss of short-eared owl habitat and noted mitigation measures would include
ensuring all areas are searched for nests prior to clearing activities, any sightings would be
investigated and active nests would be marked; and reclamation would include establishment of shrub
cover. AREVA noted that the Project would result in the long-term loss of some nesting and foraging
habitat for short-eared owls. The change in habitat would be measureable, but would be limited to
the Project footprint (complete loss) and within the LAA (indirect loss). Reduced habitat effectiveness
was considered to be reversible once operations cease. AREVA further noted that the long term
Project effects on short-eared owl nesting and foraging habitat was expected to be not significant.
AREVA noted that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit provided information on wildlife presence, behaviour, and
habitat use to supplement and inform historical and regional data.
4.13.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
During the Final Hearing, the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) noted concern regarding birds potentially
being attracted to the Project’s waste areas and consuming the vegetation within the sewage
management area; the KIA requested information from both the Government of Nunavut (GN) and
AREVA on how they would manage waste more effectively to avoid such impacts.339 The GN indicated
that waste management and water management within a hamlet are subject to a water licence from
the Nunavut Water Board.
In its final written submission to the NIRB, the GN provided a recommendation related to all wildlife
that if a significant multi-year lag develops, greater than 10 years, between the effects assessment and
the Project’s commencement that AREVA be required to update the effects assessment with up-todate information to ensure conclusions within the FEIS remain valid.340 AREVA responded to all parties
that it understood that there were sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that such an assessment
would take place in the event of the Project being approved and a substantial lag in time occurring
prior to construction commencing.341
The GN further noted that the FEIS failed to reference relevant sections of the Nunavut Wildlife Act
and the prohibitions in relation to raptor nests. The GN recommended that additional work be
undertaken to locate and monitor nests that may be subject to Project impacts. AREVA responded
that in order to have information available to support final detailed design, a minimum two year
period would be required prior to construction activities instead of the 1 year period as suggested by
the GN. AREVA further agreed to focus nest searching/collection of peregrine falcon data within three
339
R. Ningeocheak, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015,
pp. 2151-2152, lines 19-26 and 1-6.
340
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015 pp. 70-71.
341
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-251 - 2-252
130
kilometres of mine infrastructure including access roads.342 During the Final Hearing, the GN noted
that it agreed with the Proponent’s proposed term and condition for raptor nests.343
Environment Canada (EC) noted within its Final Written Submission that it was encouraged by the
development of specific mitigation measures and monitoring for peregrine falcons and short-eared
owl. EC suggested that AREVA adopt a 1,000 metre set back from peregrine falcon nests in areas with
high levels of disturbance and re-route the proposed all-season access road based on this set-back if
this road option was selected. AREVA agreed to this proposed setback in principal and when
questioned at the Final Hearing again noted the intent to maintain the full buffer, while also explaining
that it may have to be examined in more detail at the time of detailed engineering where it may be
unreasonable to construct infrastructure to the exact buffer.344
EC further recommended that the Proponent regularly update the species at risk information for birds
(raptors, migratory birds, and waterfowl) and noted during the Final Hearing that ivory gull and Ross’s
gull were not listed even though they are known to occur in Hudson Strait and Hudson Bay. EC further
requested that AREVA commit to monitor for the presence of the species identified within the Species
at Risk Act within the project areas and shipping lanes, impacts to the species and identify mitigation
measures. Further it recommended that AREVA use a number of mitigation measures including
protecting the species, its habitat and its residence as well as establishing a monitoring program and
consulting the GN and EC to discuss the program. EC further requested a commitment from AREVA to
monitor the distribution and abundance of marine birds along shipping routes in Hudson Strait, the
response of marine birds to vessels and any incidents of marine bird collisions with project vessels,
should they occur. EC further requested that AREVA commit to avoiding concentrations of marine
birds, in particular flightless, young, and moulting animals, if monitoring within the shipping lane
indicates adverse risks.345
In response, AREVA agreed in principal and noted that the recommendations were consistent with the
requirements of Canadian Standards Association Standard N288.6 which AREVA plans to follow.
AREVA also agreed during the Final Hearing to update the list of Species at Risk to include all species
within the regional assessment area, however AREVA noted that it made a commitment to seek
participation with a marine environment working group established for the Baffinland Mary River Iron
Mine Project. AREVA further committed to monitoring on its own vessels for marine wildlife and
noted that this could potentially include a protocol for thick-billed murre. AREVA also noted that it
could report on the information collected, including observations. Further AREVA noted that its
marine shipping is a commercial service and would have little control over activities regarding
avoidance of marine birds and could not commit to EC’s related request.346
342
AREVA Response to Final Written Submission, February 13, 2015, pp 2-271 - 2-272.
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 774,
lines 4-7.
344
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 217-218, lines 14-26
and 1-8.
345
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 399402, lines 20-23, 9-14,10-16, 23-26, 1-11 and 16-20.
346
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 399-402, lines 24-26, 17, 16-26,1-8, 18-20, 13 and 22-26.
343
131
EC further noted that AREVA had committed to conducting active migratory bird nest surveys if
clearing was required to happen during the nesting season. EC recommended that AREVA not conduct
active nest searches as this may disturb or stress nesting birds, rather AREVA should use non-invasive
methods such as point counts or behavioral observations to determine presence of breeding birds.347
AREVA responded that it agreed with the suggestion, which was reiterated at the Final Hearing.
In its final written submission, EC noted concern regarding contamination risks to waterfowl and
waterbirds at the water management ponds and recommended that AREVA monitor the use of water
management ponds as waterfowl could be attracted to them and AREVA had indicated that the water
in the ponds would be periodically removed and treated. EC was concerned that AREVA had not
proposed specific plans to mitigate waterfowl and waterbirds from accessing these ponds, while
experience from other northern mines has shown that birds are attracted to these waterbodies.
Therefore EC recommended that AREVA implement measures to prevent contact of migratory birds
with the harmful substances to ensure compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act.348 AREVA
responded by proposing that a water management pond monitoring, inspection and mitigation work
be developed during licensing of the Project and incorporated into the Integrated Management
System.349
EC further commented on the potential for accidental by-catch of waterbirds during fish-out
operations, particularly when Andrew Lake would be modified for the Project (e.g., installation of dyke
structure). Waterbirds use Andrew Lake and other water bodies within the local assessment area
(LAA) for nesting, foraging and brood rearing throughout the breeding season. EC recommended that
fish-out programs occur outside May 15 to Aug 15 to avoid incidental take of birds though
entrapment/entanglement in gill nets. Further EC recommended that mitigations measures be
included in the Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan (WMMP) if the fish-out program cannot
occur outside of the aforementioned time. AREVA agreed in its response with the recommendation.350
EC noted that AREVA proposed a 60-day open-water shipping season (August 1 - October 1) and
estimated that marine shipping for the Project may account for 14 percent and 12 percent of the total
annual marine traffic through Hudson Strait during construction and operation phases, respectively.
EC expressed concern that the potential cumulative annual vessel traffic through the Hudson Strait
could result in marine birds encountering approximately two to three ships per day during these
phases of this project. EC was concerned that the cumulative effects of marine shipping through
Hudson Strait on marine birds is unknown and more baseline monitoring is required to determine this
with certainty. EC recognized that AREVA had committed to use onboard marine mammal observers
to monitor marine mammal sightings in the LAA, and provided additional recommendations. AREVA’s
response in Final Written Submissions was that marine birds would be present within the LAA and
RAA, however the physical presence, movement, lighting, and noise of marine vessels, was not
projected to have a measurable effect on bird health, behaviour, or habitat due to the short duration
of vessel operation and infrequent number of vessel transits. AREVA further committed to working
347
Environment Canada Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 32-33.
Environment Canada Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 35-36.
349
AREVA Response to Final Written Submission, February 13, 2015, p. 2-160.
350
AREVA Response to Final Written Submission, February 13, 2015, p. 2-162.
348
132
with EC to consider the inclusion of a marine bird observatory procedure into the proposed marine
wildlife observation program and other relevant management plans prior to Project licensing.351
During the Final Hearing, it was noted by EC that it did not predict any substantial changes to regional
populations of migratory birds or species at risk as a result of the proposed project development.
However, it provided recommendations for additional or enhanced mitigation to further avoid adverse
effects and help AREVA achieve compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species
at Risk Act. EC further noted that similar to other intervenors, uncertainties were identified regarding
potential project impacts on marine birds, in particular, potential effects of marine shipping in Hudson
Strait. “Limited information [was] provided by AREVA to evaluate the effects. [..] The occurrence of
[migrating marine birds and thick-billed murres] in shipping lanes and the sensitivity and response of
these birds to disturbance is unknown.”352 Concern were also brought up regarding the potential
adverse effects from any accidental fuel or oil spills on these and other marine birds EC provided
recommendations submission regarding potential disturbances, collisions, and spills affecting marine
birds along the marine shipping route.353
During the Final Hearing, the KIA directed a question to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
for its technical opinion on when and what interval AREVA should update the marine baseline and
assessment for marine mammals, birds and fish, should the Project be delayed, and any associated
timeframes.354 Environment Canada (EC) initially responded to the question and noted that the
impacts of shipping through Hudson Strait on marine birds are unknown and baseline information
remains limited. Further, EC acknowledged that rapid changes are being observed in the Arctic and as
a result baseline conditions may change if the project is delayed even over a short span of time. EC
indicated that more baseline monitoring of forging marine bird distribution is required and a delay in
the Project does not change EC’s recommendation. EC recommended a minimum of two to three
years of pre-disturbance baseline data should be collected to determine variability in bird occurrence
over time as well as potential impacts to marine birds.355 In its response, DFO noted should the
Project be delayed as noted by AREVA, the adequacy of the marine baseline data would need to be reexamined to identify data gaps. DFO recommended that at least two to three years of baseline data
should be prior to the start of shipping activities and consult with DFO, the Kivalliq Inuit Association
and the Hunters and Trappers Organizations to ensure baseline data is collected using proper
methodology, and that Inuit Qaujimaningit also be incorporated.356
351
AREVA Response to Final Written Submission, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-166 - 2-167.
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p. 1072,
lines 1-10.
353
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript NIRB File No. 09MN003,
March 7, 2015, pp. 1070-1073, lines 21-26, 1-26, 1-26 and 1-14.
354
B. Stewart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p. 10991100, lines 8-13, 24-26 and 1-2.
355
B. Summerfield, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, pp.
2017-2019, lines 12-26, 1-26 and 1-3.
356
G. Williston, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2014,
pp. 2093-2094, lines 13-26 and 1-7.
352
133
A community member from Coral Harbour requested clarification from EC on whether the impacts
from increased shipping have been studied.357 EC noted that it has discussed the issue with AREVA
and AREVA has agreed to the recommendations put forward by EC for migratory marine birds in the
Strait.
4.13.3
Views of the Board
The Board agrees with Environment Canada’s concern regarding the limited amount of baseline
information regarding marine birds and the potential impacts from shipping, and agrees with its
assessment that more baseline information is required to determine the potential impacts from
proposed Project shipping on marine birds.
The Board is supportive of the recommendations put forward by parties respecting avoidance of
nesting sites, and ongoing monitoring in regards to bird and bird habitat.
4.13.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit bird and bird habitat impacts having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal. The Board also anticipates that the CNSC’s regulatory regime is sufficiently
robust to address, so far as possible, the issue of potential bird landings on the proposed tailings
facilities.
4.14 Marine Environment
4.14.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of potential Project impacts on marine ecology, marine water and
sediment quality within Volume 7 of the FEIS. AREVA further provided baseline information and
underwater acoustic modelling in Appendix 7A and Appendix 7B, respectively. AREVA noted that it
selected marine mammals and marine fish as valued ecosystem components for its assessment on
marine wildlife (this is further discussed in Section 4.14: Marine Wildlife) through both Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and public engagement, where it identified potential affects by marine
transportation activities as of cultural and ecological importance in the Hudson Bay region.
AREVA presented an impact analysis for all Project components and activities, including its shipping
activities, on the marine environment. AREVA’s FEIS provided the following conclusions regarding
potential Project effects to the marine environment:

the dock facility would have no environmental effects of concern due to low vessel frequency;

propeller wash and wake were not expected to alter the sediment transport regime or result
in any change to surficial sediment and seabed;
357
D. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript NIRB File No. 09MN003, March 12, 2015, p. 20612062, lines 16-26 and 1-26.
134

bilge and ballast water were expected to have no interaction with marine biota, sediment
quality, or water quality as vessels would follow guidelines under Canadian Law;

and there would be limited potential for introduction of marine nonindigenous or invasive
species through marine shipping activities due to low shipping activity and inability of nonindigenous species to survive harsh Arctic environmental conditions.
AREVA identified the following three spatial assessment boundaries for its effects assessment on the
marine environment:
 Project footprint — The proposed shipping route to be used by Project-related vessels
transiting from the entrance to Chesterfield Inlet from Hudson Bay, through Chesterfield
Narrows to the dock site on the north shore of Baker Lake.
 Local assessment area (LAA) — The marine waters of Chesterfield Inlet and the adjacent
coastal and offshore regions at the mouth of Chesterfield Inlet; this includes the portion of
the shipping route where marine vessels would be transiting to and from the main shipping
routes in Hudson Bay.
 Regional Assessment Area (RAA) — Includes the proposed shipping route in Hudson Bay
between Churchill and Chesterfield Inlet, and the proposed route through Hudson Bay and
Hudson Strait to the extent of Nunavut Territorial waters. The RAA encompasses a 20
kilometre conservative zone where AREVA predicted the vessels would likely have a
measurable effect on the marine environment and the potential to act cumulatively with
marine activities of other projects. This Zone of Influence is based on its projected area
where marine animals would sense and respond to sounds from vessel activities, as
determined by underwater acoustic modelling.
AREVA based its definition of the temporal boundaries for the assessment on the predicted duration
of potential effects of marine vessel traffic, which included a conservative estimate of 25 years used to
define the temporal extent of Project activities.
AREVA acknowledged transportation associated with all phases of the Project had the potential to
interact with benthic invertebrates, marine vegetation, sediment quality, and water quality. Potential
interactions may include vessel wake, release of contaminants in bilge and ballast water, and
introduction of invasive species in ballast water and haul fouling. AREVA expected waves generated
by these vessels to be within the range of naturally occurring waves and would be unlikely to affect
shorelines adjacent to these areas due to the distance of the shipping routes offshore. As a result,
environmental effects of vessel wake on benthic invertebrates, marine vegetation, and sediment
quality were not further assessed. AREVA did not expect propeller wash and wake to alter the
sediment transport regime or result in any change to surficial sediment and seabed. As a result,
effects on sediment quality (including the sediment transport regime, surficial sediment and seabed),
were not further assessed. Also, AREVA did not expect effects on marine water quality resulting from
changes in the sediment transport regime. AREVA noted that vessels are required to follow bilge and
ballast water guidelines under Canadian law, as such little to no interaction with marine biota,
sediment quality, or water quality was expected. AREVA indicated the primary pathway for marine
invasive species would be through shipping activities. AREVA committed to adhere to Ballast Water
Control and Management Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and noted that the
underwater areas of all vessels would be coated with approved tributyltin free anti-fouling coatings.
135
AREVA has proposed the following mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of environmental
effects on the marine environment and marine wildlife resulting transportation activities:
 Limit vessel speeds in sensitive areas and confined navigation routes;
 Use best practices regarding vessel operations;
 Use designated vessel transit routes, taking into account navigational safety, so that
acoustical inputs are limited to similar and predictable areas during marine transportation;
 Ensure the presence of a local Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) on board vessels travelling
through Chesterfield Inlet to monitor for marine mammals during transit and implement
mitigation measures to prevent inadvertent modification of animal behaviour or movement;
 Establish a standard operating procedure for halting vessels if marine mammals appear to be
herded by an approaching vessel within Chesterfield Inlet; and
 Maintain a minimal distance of 30 kilometres between vessel traffic and Cape Pembroke to
avoid disturbance of this key marine habitat site for migratory birds.
AREVA has proposed to develop a marine mammal monitoring program to further describe the
following:
 Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the LAA and approaches to Chesterfield
Inlet;
 Establish the MMO program;
 Survey marine mammals during the open water season prior to the start of Project shipping
operations; and
 Finalize the design of monitoring program in collaboration with government agencies and
the Chesterfield Inlet Hunters and Trappers Organization.
4.14.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
In their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association
(NTI/KIA) recommended that both AREVA and the KIA consider seeking participation in the Marine
Environment Working Group (MEWG) that was established for Baffinland Iron Mines Limited’s Mary
River Iron Mine. NTI/KIA noted that the MEWG advises on monitoring studies related to its shipping
activities in the Hudson Strait, recommending that AREVA seek participation as both projects would
have cumulative effects related to their shipping in Hudson Strait. In its response, AREVA recognized
that open communication and collaboration between government agencies, proponents, and
communities is important to improve understanding of cumulative and transboundary effects that
may be attributed to shipping activities. AREVA noted that it would consider seeking participation in
the MEWG that was established for the Mary River Iron Mine and that it viewed that as an opportunity
to contribute to understanding the potential cumulative and/or transboundary effects of shipping on
the marine environment.
During the Final Hearing, the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) recommended the Government of
Nunavut (GN) collaborate with AREVA and other agencies on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit studies related
to cumulative impacts and marine monitoring. In its response, the GN clarified that the studies are the
responsibility of AREVA and the GN should be consulted only. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) also
clarified a recommendation from the KIA; that Transport Canada’s (TC) mandate includes monitoring
136
of marine traffic, not DFO. KIA explained the wording intended was to ensure that marine traffic did
not expand to the point of causing cumulative effects without any sort of control. The KIA further
explained the MEWG was developed to address potential long term shipping impacts on marine
mammals, seabirds, Inuit harvesting, and to all the various factors relating to marine shipping as it
increases.358 TC also clarified that any ship which is navigating the region is required to report
pursuant to the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations (NORDREG) about their sail
plan and when they would be reaching the port.
NTI/KIA noted in their Final Written Submission that monitoring and mitigation need careful
consideration when addressing uncertainty in impact predictions related to shipping routes and the
extent of the marine assessment area. It recommended that AREVA consider multiple monitoring
techniques to help ensure that any resulting negative impacts of the Project would not be missed due
to uncertainty in the information used to assess the potential impacts. NTI/KIA further acknowledged
that AREVA had committed to participate in non-indigenous species introduction research and would
consider co-funding collection of baseline benthic invertebrate data at Chesterfield Inlet. Within its
response, AREVA noted that within its FEIS it had committed to developing and implementing a
marine monitoring program in collaboration with government agencies and HTOs to further describe
the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the LAA and approaches to Chesterfield Inlet
and address the cumulative effects of marine transportation activities; it would establish the onboard
monitoring program for marine mammal observations; and it would both consider seeking
participation in the MEWG and provide an updated Marine Shipping Plan provided prior to completion
of licensing.
In its final written submission, the GN noted significant overlap between the Project, the Meadowbank
Gold Mine, and other mining projects was a real possibility which should be noted and addressed.
Within its written response, AREVA recognized that Agnico Eagle Mines Limited’s Amaruq project has
the potential to extend the life of the Meadowbank Gold Mine beyond the current planned closure
date of 2017 and noted that within its marine cumulative effects assessment, as presented in the FEIS,
it assumed that additional resources would be found in the Meadowbank Gold Mine area (i.e. the
Amaruq project deposits) and that the Meadowbank Gold Mine would continue operations
concurrently with the Project. AREVA further noted Appendix 2J provided information on anticipated
vessel traffic based on reasonably foreseeable projects in the region. Although in these tables it was
assumed that the Meadowbank Gold Mine would close in 2017, a longer operating period could be
accommodated under the "Hypothetical Mine A" scenario noted in Table 3.3-3, where varying vessel
traffic estimates are assessed. AREVA also indicated that it did not believe updating the tables is
necessary at this time.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA inquired what TC’s role would be for ensuring safe navigation of
Project vessels through Chesterfield Inlet. In its response, TC noted that vessels transiting to Baker
Lake would be required to abide by the NORDREG regulation, which includes: report their navigation
plan, port arrival time, and any deviations from the submitted plan to the Canadian Coast Guard, and
abide by any direction given regarding addressing repairs. TC noted that AREVA had proposed very
good measures, such as tidal and daylight navigation precautions, marine mammal observers onboard,
B. Stuart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp.
693-694, line 21-25 and 13-21.
358
137
however, AREVA also planned to submit more information on the traffic management system during
the licencing stage for review.359
During the Final Hearing, the KIA asked AREVA for clarification on what was meant by “maximum safe
distance” with respect to shipping around walrus haul-outs. In its response, AREVA indicated the
distance would depend on the location. For example, open areas could be up to 30 km away,
however, confined waters would be limited to the centre of the channel.360 During the Final Hearing, a
community representative from Rankin Inlet expressed concern about shipping through the channels,
asking what size barge AREVA was proposing to use and how it would respond to spills.361 Another
community representative, from Chesterfield Inlet, expressed concern about shipping hazards such as
sandbars through the Chesterfield narrows and how ships would be unable to avoid local marine
wildlife.362 Another community member expressed concern about shipping through the narrows and
reflected on information passed on through a now-deceased Elder, that some areas in that area can be
quite shallow.363
During the Final Hearing, both DFO and the NIRB staff asked AREVA whether the barges it proposed to
use for the Project would be either commercial or purpose built and how it planned to implement
committed mitigation measures such as propeller shape and other tug features. AREVA indicated the
barges would be purpose built vessels for transiting the narrows, to improve safety and navigability, as
further discussed in Volume 10 Accidents, Malfunctions and Effects of the Environment on the
Project.364
During the Final Hearing, TC clarified for the NIRB that under the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act,
“there is zero discharge of bilge waters in this area; vessels are prohibited from discharging any bilge
waters”.365 TC highly recommended any restrictions put on vessels’ lighting should adhere to the
collisions regulations, noting that vessels cannot jeopardize their safety with regards to shielding the
navigation lights. 365
In its final written submission to the NIRB, TC noted that in accordance with its Marine Transportation
Security Regulations AREVA would be required to provide TC with specific vessel interfaces as soon as
available. In its response to final written submissions, AREVA noted that it had included all of the Acts,
regulations, and maritime conventions within its FEIS that all of the Project vessels would be required
to operate in compliance with. AREVA indicated it had committed to provide TC with specific vessel
interfaces at the time of Project licensing. AREVA also acknowledged that it would require the marine
vessel operators to comply with the Marine Transportation Security Act and Regulations.
359
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, pp. 872-873, lines 13-26
and 1-8; p. 874, lines 9-13, 17-18, 20-22; p. 875, lines 3-7.
360
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 395, lines 14-23.
361
T. Irwin, Rankin Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1606, lines 6-12.
362
E. Tautu, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1586, lines 516.
363
L. Tupik, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p. 2202, lines
18-26.
364
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 403, lines 20-24.
365
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 406-407, lines
3-7 and 10-15.
138
During the Final Hearing, TC clarified wording listed for NTI/KIA’s recommended term and condition
#4; TC does not certify shippers, it certifies vessels. TC also noted that recommendation #2 ‘project
vessels shall give marine birds and mammals the right-of-way, avoid erratic behaviour, and mitigate
disturbances to marine mammals that appear to be trapped, disturbed by vessel movement’ should
include the wording “subject to safe navigation”. TC agreed with NTI/KIA’s recommendation #1
‘maintain the necessary equipment and trained personnel to respond to all sizes of potential spills
associated with the project in a self-sufficient manner’, however it also noted the need for AREVA to
demonstrate their response capabilities.366
Within TC’s Final Written Submission, it informed AREVA that in addition to the Navigable Water
Permit, TC has issued an approval for an ERAP #2-0088 to AREVA for the transportation of Class 7
Radioactive Materials. IT also clarified to AREVA that TC has issued an approval for an ERAP to AREVA.
In its response, AREVA agreed with TC’s clarification.367
During the Final Hearing, TC requested clarification on whether AREVA intended to transport
yellowcake by vessel.368 In its response, AREVA reiterated that marine transportation of yellowcake
had been removed as an alternative method of transportation for the Project.369
During the Final Hearing, a community representative from Baker Lake expressed their concern about
another dock being built in Baker Lake and how important the area is to locals for drinking water and
fishing. The community member further asked whether supplies for the Project could be flown in,
rather than shipped.370 In its response, AREVA indicated flying-in the large amount of supplies needed
wasn’t a viable alternative. They also explained the use of Agnico Eagle Mine Limited’s dock was
preferred if the timing allowed however the alternative was to build a new dock site for the Project.
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB asked TC for information regarding the projected changes in level of
shipping activities in Nunavut, or more specifically the Hudson Bay area, and who would be
responsible for controlling traffic within Baker Lake.371 In its response, TC did not have any statistics
on the projected marine traffic in the Arctic. It noted the NORDREG tracks real-time traffic, but not
statistics on future projections. There is an active reporting system for vessel traffic entering and
leaving Baker Lake, in addition, AREVA has committed to providing a traffic controller. All vessel
Masters are required to follow a number of regulations to ensure safe navigation.372 During the Final
Hearing, the NIRB asked AREVA whether it intended to use International or Canadian companies for
shipping and whether it would use existing shipping routes. AREVA indicated that the contracted
366
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 699, lines 1822; p. 700, lines 5-8, 23-26; p. 701, lines 1-5.
367
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-505.
368
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 699, lines 2-4.
369
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 699, lines 7-14.
370
D. Ovyuk, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1657-1658, lines
12-26 and 1-7.
371
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 911-912, lines 21-26 and
13-17.
372
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 912, lines 2-8,
22-26; p. 913, lines 1-7, 16-26; p. 914, lines 1-3.
139
company would be decided through a tendering process; however its understanding was that a
number of Canadian companies currently ship through the Hudson Bay and the Hudson Strait.373
4.14.3
Views of the Board
Shipping for the Project is restricted to annual resupply during the open water season only, and the
Proponent has indicated it would use experienced Canadian shipping contractors and established
shipping lanes. The Board has considered the information presented in the FEIS and the presentations
made by interested Parties and community members, and believes that the issues related to the
marine environment are significant. The Board supports the concerns expressed regarding the
potential adverse effects of shipping through the Chesterfield narrows, in particular, the likelihood of
encountering difficult conditions for safe navigation. The Board was not persuaded that, in the event
of a fuel spill, that response capacity on board the ships or barges involved, or in the Region, would
necessarily be sufficient to ensure rapid and complete containment in all cases.
4.14.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit marine environment impacts having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal.
4.15 Marine Wildlife
4.15.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA’s assessment of potential Project impacts on marine ecology, marine water and sediment
quality, and marine biota including fish and marine habitat was presented in Volume 7 of its FEIS and
its baseline information and underwater acoustic modelling were provided in Volume 7, Appendix 7A
and Appendix 7B, respectively. AREVA noted that it selected marine mammals and marine fish as
valued ecosystem components for its assessment on marine wildlife through both Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and public engagement, where it identified potential affects by marine
transportation activities as of cultural and ecological importance in the Hudson Bay region. The
primary component considered in the marine assessment was vessel operations in Nunavut waters.
AREVA concluded that any potential residual environmental effects to marine mammal populations to
be site specific, sporadic, and low in magnitude. AREVA also concluded where a lethal or severe
vessel-marine mammal collision occurs, the effect is potentially fatal (i.e., irreversible) to the individual
animal, however environmental effects on marine mammal populations are expected to be reversible
through natural recruitment. AREVA did not expect marine transportation activities to affect marine
birds, benthic invertebrates, marine vegetation, sediment quality or water quality.
AREVA identified the same three spatial assessment boundaries for its assessment on the marine
environment as for marine wildlife (see Section 4.14: Marine Environment). AREVA based its
373
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 428, lines 16-23.
140
definition of the temporal boundaries for the assessment on the predicted duration of potential
effects of marine vessel traffic, which included a conservative estimate of 25 years used to define the
temporal extent of Project activities.
AREVA acknowledged marine birds are present in the local and regional assessment areas (LAA and
RAA), and use the marine environment for part or all of their life cycle. However, the physical
presence, movement and noise of marine vessels were not expected to have a measureable effect on
bird health, behaviour or habitat, given the short duration of vessel operations (open-water season)
and the infrequent number of vessel transits.
AREVA completed aerial surveys for marine mammals over 11 days between 2008 and 2009, for a total
of 10,900 kilometres of transect data. AREVA noted nine species of marine mammal are present in the
RAA. Of these species, three are considered common (beluga whale, ringed seal and polar bear). Both
the beluga whale and polar bear are designated as special concern by the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. AREVA acknowledged that there is potential for whales to be struck
by vessels. Further, the risk and severity of marine mammal collision with vessels increases with
vessel speed (faster than 14 knots) and is generally more common with larger, slow moving whales.
AREVA indicated that since both belugas and seals are relatively maneuverable, they would likely
avoid being the direct path of a moving vessel whenever possible. Marine transportation was not
expected to have any environmental effects on polar bears since shipping and barging would only
occur during the open-water season and would not overlap substantially with the seasonal habitat of
the bears.
AREVA used an acoustic modelling study (JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise Model) to predict the
footprint of underwater sound levels emitted by tug and barge operations along the proposed marine
transportation route. Four locations for modelling were selected based on proximity of the planned
transportation route to each community (Chesterfield Inlet; Rankin Inlet; Whale Cove; and Arviat).
The study modelled noise emitted from tugs only, as barges were not expected to contribute
substantially to underwater noise when thrusters are simply used during berthing and close-in
manoeuvering. AREVA’s proposed use of twin-screw, ice-class tugs with an estimated 4500 brake
horsepower; 44 metre (m) length; 4.6 m draft; 2.7 m propeller diameter; and speed of 13 knots were
used as inputs for modelling. Audiogram-weighted sound pressure contours, or isopleth maps, were
generated for each model scenario for arctic char; beluga; bearded seal; harp seal; and ringed seal.
AREVA predicted that given the frequency of vessel transits, and the low intensity of sensory
disturbance that is expected, all environmental effects on the marine environment and marine wildlife
populations are expected to be low in magnitude and considered to be not significant. Cumulative
effects on the risk of mortality due to vessel-mammal collisions were expected to be low in magnitude,
due to the potential increases in injury and risk of mortality to marine mammals cause by overlap in
marine transportation activities with other reasonably foreseeable projects. This is not expected to
have an effect on population viability and is therefore predicted to be not significant.
AREVA has proposed the following mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of environmental
effects on the marine environment and marine wildlife resulting transportation activities:
 Limit vessel speeds in sensitive areas and confined navigation routes;
 Use best practices regarding vessel operations;
141
 Use designated vessel transit routes, taking into account navigational safety, so that
acoustical inputs are limited to similar and predictable areas during marine transportation;
 Ensure the presence of a local Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) on board vessels travelling
through Chesterfield Inlet to monitor for marine mammals during transit and implement
mitigation measures to prevent inadvertent modification of animal behaviour or movement;
 Establish a standard operating procedure for halting vessels if marine mammals appear to be
herded by an approaching vessel within Chesterfield Inlet; and
 Maintain a minimal distance of 30 kilometres between vessel traffic and Cape Pembroke to
avoid disturbance of this key marine habitat site for migratory birds.
AREVA has proposed to develop a marine mammal monitoring program to further describe the
following:
 Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the LAA and approaches to Chesterfield
Inlet;
 Establish the MMO program;
 Survey marine mammals during the open water season prior to the start of Project shipping
operations; and
 Finalize the design of monitoring program in collaboration with government agencies and
the Chesterfield Inlet Hunters and Trappers Organization.
4.15.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
In their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association
(NTI/KIA) indicated that AREVA’s baseline for the marine environment suffered from some
deficiencies, including but not limited to dated information, incorrect and incomplete sections, and
limited marine mammal surveys. NTI/KIA noted that updated materials should also include a revised
and corrected table identifying the conservation status of the different marine mammal species found
within the RAA. NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA update the relevant management and monitoring
plan to incorporate important additional baseline information on marine wildlife abundance and
seasonal distribution, critical habitats, migration routes, and the potential for interactions with project
vessels. NTI/KIA added that this information should be used to inform vessel transit planning and
minimize potential impacts to marine mammals and their critical habitats. In its written response,
AREVA noted its proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential Project related effects on marine
mammals, including walrus, were available in Volume 7 of the FEIS. AREVA would also continue to
engage with regulatory authorities, Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTO), the scientific
community and local communities to identify walrus haul-out sites and to utilize this information to
update relevant mitigation and management plans and to inform vessel transit planning.374
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) observed that AREVA had not
fulfilled commitments made during the review of the DEIS to include recent polar bear baseline data
and spill response plans for wildlife. Furthermore, it indicated that AREVA had unduly limited the
374
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-370.
142
scope of the marine effects assessment to exclude the potential impacts of a major fuel spill along the
Project’s proposed shipping routes, and noted that AREVA cites precedents “marine shipping will
occur during the open water season thus minimizing potential interactions between the Project and
bears” to justify this limitation in the scope of the assessment. 375,376 In response to final written
submissions provided by the GN, AREVA noted that it used polar bear distribution data obtained from
the KIA’s public online mapping in its marine wildlife assessment, and added that the GN shapefiles it
had requested were not available at the time of assessment. In its response, AREVA responded that it
had appropriately assessed the potential marine related effects to polar bears and that its analysis and
conclusions as presented in the FEIS remain valid. AREVA further noted its commitment to work with
the GN to include polar bear status and ecological baseline information into relevant marine baseline
and management plans going forward. AREVA indicated it was willing to contribute to regional
monitoring efforts led by regulatory agencies and would consider seeking participation in the MEWG.
Finally, AREVA noted it would periodically review and update species at risk information to reflect
current statuses of marine species potentially occurring in the RAA. AREVA recognized the limited
capacity for marine emergency response in the Arctic and agreed with the GN that worst-case fuel spill
modelling is useful to inform spill planning and preparedness during development of emergency
response plans. The emergency spill response plan developed prior to licensing would include a
marine wildlife protection component that would outline procedures for responding to wildlife
potentially affected by a spill. AREVA also anticipated that mutual aid agreements between mine
operators that support emergency response plans by allowing mines to share resources when needed
would be explored in Appendix 10C.377
During the Final Hearing, the KIA questioned Environment Canada (EC) on its technical opinion on how
the marine baseline and assessment should be updated, if the Project was delayed.392 In both its Final
Written Submission and response at the Final Hearing, EC noted that the impacts and cumulative
effects of marine shipping through the Hudson Strait on marine birds are unknown and more baseline
monitoring of foraging marine bird distributions is required to determine this with certainty, and
importance for AREVA to further develop its proposed mitigation measures and monitoring. EC
explained that ice conditions in the Arctic, including the northern Hudson Bay region, have changed
rapidly over the last two decades resulting in changes in diet and possibly population parameters of
some birds. EC added that a delay in Project commencement would facilitate the additional time
required to implement the recommendations, which would require approximately two to three years
to complete.378
During the Final Hearing, the KIA requested that AREVA commit to conduct noise monitoring as part of
its marine mammal monitoring to verify model results and cumulative effects estimates and further
requested that AREVA provide information on how the results would be used to determine potential
shipping impacts to mammals of concerns, for example, ringed seal.379 The KIA noted during its
presentation at the Final Hearing, that even though the underwater noise modelling conducted by the
375
FEIS, Volume 7, p. 6-1.
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 81-84.
377
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-166 - 2-167 and 2-266 - 2-267.
378
B. Summerfield, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p.
2018, lines 9-21.
379
B. Stewart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 370,
lines 3-11.
376
143
Proponent was well done, gaps were identified in the model inputs that could lead to uncertainties in
the impact predictions. The KIA provided recommendations that could inform adaptive management
with respect to marine wildlife. The KIA further clarified after questioning by a Board member that
due to concerns identified regarding potential impacts to marine mammals, it was requesting that
AREVA undertake noise monitoring, especially within Chesterfield Inlet, to determine if AREVA’s model
accurately predicts the noise levels experienced by marine mammals.380 AREVA noted it would
develop a wildlife protection plan in collaboration with the KIA, and local Hunter and Trappers
Organizations (HTO), especially in Chesterfield Inlet, to determine the best methods for monitoring;
however, AREVA noted that it did not envision undertaking a specific underwater noise monitoring
program.381
During the Final Hearing, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) asked the KIA to clarify what it meant
with the recommendation that “the Proponent commit to working with DFO to undertake additional
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit studies on the effects of marine traffic on marine habitats, species, and
harvesting prior to construction”.382 DFO noted that such studies are the responsibility of the
Proponent to develop and that its role would be to review and provide recommendations on
methodology for the studies and any monitoring programs. Clarification was also requested regarding
the wording of other KIA recommendations, particularly for who is implied to be responsible.383 The
KIA noted the intended wording should convey commitment to consult with rather than a
commitment to work with.384
During the Final Hearing, EC requested that AREVA commit to updating its list of potentially impacted
species at risk and documents losses to account for any changes in species status changes over time.385
DFO also commented on AREVA’s proposed commitment to record incidental observations and asked
AREVA to clarify whether it proposed to monitor marine fish, such as wolffish. In its response, AREVA
indicated it would update its list of species at risk and record incidental observations, however did not
expect to encounter marine fish such as wolffish.
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake similarly asked DFO whether it knew of any
sampling of Arctic Char fish stocks in the Chesterfield Inlet area and their presence throughout the
channel.386 DFO noted there had not been any surveys for the Chesterfield Inlet area.387
380
B. Stewart, Kitikmeot Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp.
755-756, lines 17-26 and 1-15.
381
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 370, lines 13-22.
382
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 690,
lines 8-12.
383
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 690,
lines 5-12 and 20-23.
384
B. Stuart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 693,
lines 1-4.
385
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 402, lines
8-11.
386
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1111, lines 15-19.
387
G. Williston, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13,
2015, p. 2095, lines 8-11.
144
Within their joint final written submission, NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA incorporate input from
the KIA, regulators, and Inuit from the impacted communities when designing future aerial surveys.
NTI/KIA noted that aerial surveys should be conducted through an entire shipping season; extend both
earlier and later in the season, and ideally over several years to provide necessary information on
annual variation in marine mammal distribution, abundance, and habitat use.388 During the Final
Hearing, DFO noted its recommendation which included statistical design of marine mammal aerial
survey consultations between KIA, HTO, and regulators such as DFO, where the Proponent would be
assisted with design for statistically valid data, however, the Proponent conducts the surveys.389
Within its written response, AREVA stated that its data as provided in the FEIS supported the
assessment of marine vessel disturbance on the behaviour and mortality risk of marine mammal
species present in the area, with particular consideration given to beluga whales and ringed seals. In
addition, it noted that it used information provided by Kivalliq community members and HTOs through
consultations on the presence/absence, abundance, and migration trends of marine mammals in
designing its 2008 and 2009 open-water field programs. AREVA commented on a previous
commitment to conduct additional marine mammal surveys prior to the start of Project shipping
operations and that these surveys would be designed in collaboration with government agencies and
the Chesterfield Inlet HTO. AREVA further noted that it would similarly share information collected
from the marine mammal monitoring program and would contribute to a regulator-led program to
address concerns regarding uncertainties in marine mammal distribution in the RAA, with the parties
listed above.390
The KIA also asked DFO whether it considered the existing marine baseline collected for the Project to
be sufficient to distinguish natural variability from project-related effects. In its response, DFO
indicated that although there were some deficiencies and inconsistencies in the methodology for
aerial surveys, the baseline presented was adequate for impact predictions. DFO also noted the preexisting shipping activity essentially modifies the concept of collecting baseline data.391 The KIA
further commented that it was concerned that the marine environment is quickly changing, making it
difficult to detect cumulative effects.392
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA recommended that marine mammal observers be
present on all vessels engaged in project-related activities, not just the barges in the LAA.410 Within its
written response, AREVA noted that MMO’s would be present onboard tug-barges and vessels when
transiting the confined waters of the LAA. In addition, AREVA would also include in its contracts with
shipping companies that ships should avoid sensitive marine areas, where navigationally safe to do so,
and that ship logs would document course adjustments made to avoid sensitive habitat areas as well
as vessel speed and speed reductions in these important areas. Finally, AREVA reiterated that details
388
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
26.
389
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 692,
lines 8-14 and 18-23.
390
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-372 - 2-374 and 2-377.
391
J. Dahl, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, p.
1100, lines 4-12 and 20-26.
392
B. Stuart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, p. 1101 and
1104, lines 8-10 and 18-22.
145
of the marine monitoring program would be finalized prior to Project licensing and their consideration
in seeking participation in the MEWG.390
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA work closely with
intervenors, including the KIA, DFO and HTOs, to develop a robust monitoring protocol for potential
noise impacts to marine mammals with appropriate thresholds and a clear description of mitigation
options that would be implemented if negative effects resulting from vessel noise were discovered.
NTI/KIA noted that Inuit observations should be considered as a key source of marine wildlife
information, particularly given that ecological changes have already been observed and reported by
Inuit. NTI/KIA added that vessel-related impacts would need to be monitored throughout the
operation phase of the Project to ensure that there would be no long-term cumulative effects.
Furthermore, NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA mitigate potential noise related effects by ensuring
that the vessels it would use would be engineered to be as quiet as possible, for example, through
propeller designs.393
In response to final written submissions provided by NTI/KIA, AREVA noted that its commitments for
noise reduction presented in Volume 7 included optimal propeller selection for tugs/barges, regular
monitoring and maintenance of all vessel propellers, maintaining a maximum safe distance from
shorelines while in transit and utilizing an onboard MMO who would observe, record, and notify the
vessel captain when individual or groupings of marine mammals were observed within specific radii of
the vessel so that appropriate mitigation measures could be implemented. AREVA added that its
shipping standard operating protocols would be developed in conjunction with the selected shipping
contractor, with input from regulatory agencies prior to Project licensing. In addition, AREVA
reiterated its consideration to participate in the regional MEWG, as requested.Error! Bookmark not defined.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA asked DFO whether it had reviewed the marine shipping component
of the Project. DFO indicated that it had been engaged in the Baffinland Mary River Iron Mine, where
its Science Division completed an extensive review, and felt it was transferrable to the review of
increased shipping associated with the Kiggavik project.411 The KIA requested further explanation as to
how the Baffinland Project information was directly applied to the review of Chesterfield Inlet.394 DFO
explained that even though it was a different geographical area, the marine mammals and their
response to shipping noise and risk of impact was transferable to other locations.395
During the Final Hearing, both the Baker Lake HTO and a community representative from Chesterfield
Inlet questioned AREVA’s use of a 24 minute exposure benchmark in the underwater acoustic
modelling, for vessel noise disturbance for seals and fish. Through their experience seals could hear
noise for much further and for longer timeframe.396 In its response, AREVA explained the 24 minutes
is based on how long it takes for a vessel to travel through a given zone of potential behaviour change,
393
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
26.
394
B. Stewart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p. 1098,
lines 13-17.
395
J. Dahl, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015,
p. 1098, lines 19-24.
396
A. Tautu, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1206, lines 1618.
146
for individual marine wildlife. They can hear the vessel for a much longer distance; however the zone
is based on the threshold of sound.397
During the Final Hearing, both the Baker Lake HTO and a community representative from Chesterfield
Inlet asked AREVA to clarify its prediction that its planned frequency of barges would not result in
affects to marine wildlife populations near Chesterfield Inlet and in the channel.398,399
The community representative from Chesterfield Inlet raised further concerns regarding the potential
impacts from shipping on marine wildlife, specifically regarding birds and marine mammals potentially
being struck by ships and the fact that AREVA noted that there would not be any significant impacts to
wildlife. The community member noted concerns regarding cumulative impacts within Hudson Bay
with increased shipping.400
AREVA noted that the Meadowbank Gold Mine’s current shipment numbers were comparable, and
anticipated that when shipping would commence for the Project the shipping frequency required for
the Meadowbank Gold Mine would be significantly less. Further, AREVA noted that it would have
shipping mitigation measures in place from its assessment, and the channel has the capacity to safely
accommodate the number of ships.401 AREVA acknowledged hearing the comment before about seal
distribution in and around Chesterfield Inlet, and have committed to do additional baseline work in
the area to improve its understanding and make improvements to operations.402,403 The Baker Lake
HTO provided further comment, noting its disagreement with AREVA’s conclusions because seals seem
to have disappeared all-together since Meadowbank Gold Mine’s shipping began.398 AREVA clarified
its ‘no significant impacts’ conclusion with certain level of uncertainty, noting that it plans to use
marine mammal observers for real-time changes of shipping protocols.
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake asked AREVA for clarification on the number of
expected vessel trips per season, if any of the barges would over-winter, and whether Belugas and
other fish stocks coming in and out of Baker Lake would be affected. AREVA noted there would be 31
round trips per shipping season. It also indicated that if belugas following a barge or being herded by
the barge were observed, it would take measures to avoid those impacts, however, did not have any
information on transiting fish stocks and it wasn’t predicted to have significant effects.404 The Hamlet
of Baker Lake then asked AREVA to commit to finding out whether fish stocks would be interrupted
397
J. Beckett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, p. 412, lines 5-20.
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 5, pp. 413-414, lines 8-12 and 12-18.
399
L. Mimialik, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1512, lines 4-12.
400
L Mimialik, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript NIRB File No. 09MN003, March 11, 2015, p. 1869,
lines 2-12.
401
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 413, lines 17-24.
402
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1513, lines 13-17.
403
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 414-415, lines 2-8 and
18-23.
404
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 408-410, lines 24-26, 1-4
and 11-15.
398
147
from coming in and out of Chesterfield Inlet to Baker Lake.405 In its response, AREVA noted research
literature concluded that Arctic Char show similar responses as salmon and, when modelled, they had
behavioral responses within 500 metres which included startling and increased respiration but
generally recovered quickly. AREVA further explained that it had noted in past meetings with the
Baker Lake HTO, that should anything be identified with regards to char populations, it would be
willing to talk.404
The Hamlet of Baker Lake asked DFO whether it was aware of any potential effects on Baker Lake fish
should predators like seals or belugas follow barges in through the channel. In its response, DFO
indicated that it was unable to provide an answer and was unaware of any studies which assessed
reaction to infrequent predators.406
Similarly, the Board asked the KIA during its Final Hearing presentation whether there was an
increased likelihood of attracting marine animals into Baker Lake from the Chesterfield Inlet narrows
area.407 In its response, the KIA indicated it had identified this as a concern, as marine mammals had
been observed transiting Baker Lake over the past number of decades, and might also follow boats.
It’s something the KIA believes community-based monitoring might help address. DFO also
commented that it did not have any firsthand knowledge whether barge traffic would likely increase
the attraction of marine mammals coming into Baker Lake; however thought there was a chance it
would likely continue.408
During the Final Hearing, the Board asked Transport Canada (TC) for clarification on whether a marine
mammal monitoring program is presently active or a proposed response to shipping, and whether the
program was only applicable to mining or includes all shipping.409 TC replied that it did not set any
regulations for the shipper to deal with marine mammals, however TC also noted a number of
publications and guidance documents were available through both TC and DFO’s website.
Within their Final Written Submission, NTI/KIA noted that the NIRB had previously identified a need
for increased dialogue among all parties regarding marine shipping in Nunavut, including Proponents,
communities and governments.410 Within its written response, AREVA indicated that it agreed open
communication and coordination between government agencies, project proponents, and local
communities is vital to aligning collaborative efforts to improve the management and protection of
marine wildlife.390
During the Final Hearing, the KIA inquired as to whether DFO had any regulatory licensing
requirements related to the protection of marine mammals and their habitat, from potential shipping
405
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 409,
lines 8-11.
406
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, p. 1110, lines
9-12.
407
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p.755, lines 12-14.
408
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015 p. 1152,
lines 4-9.
409
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 914, lines 10-13.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
26, 27 and 28.
410
148
impacts. In response, DFO indicated it does not have regulations for permitting or licensing when it
comes to shipping and noted that the Fisheries Act authorization does ‘prohibit the death of fish, fish
including marine mammals’, where the intent would be that impact would be avoided and
mitigated.411
During the Final Hearing, a community representative from Whale Cove asked whether there could be
gaps in the shipping schedule to reduce the disturbance to marine mammals.412 In its response,
AREVA explained there would be a gap with shipping through the narrows, simple because the barges
would have to wait for high tide in order to safely navigate through the passage. Another community
representative, from Coral Harbour, asked for clarification on what the action plans would protect
marine mammals from shipping activities.413 In its response, AREVA noted its mitigation measures
such as controlled speeds, spill-response plan, and shipping would only occur during the open water
season.
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff asked AREVA whether it was aware of any regulations or
regulatory requirements for shippers in waters within the Nunavut Settlement Area which compelled
them to monitor and avoid wildlife species, such as flightless birds, whales, and walrus. The staff
further noted that certain agencies were looking for commitments over and above existing regulatory
requirements. In its response, AREVA indicated that both the Species at Risk Act and Fisheries Act
govern those areas, however do not compel them to monitor for marine species.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA asked AREVA whether it would commit to considering noise
emissions, ballast water, hull fouling, and the ship oil pollution emergency plan (SOPEP) when
contracting vessels.414 In its response, AREVA noted it does include environmental performance and
emergency preparedness with its contractor selection process.415
Within its Final Written Submission, EC recommended that AREVA include observations of large
congregations of marine birds and vessel-bird interactions in its mitigation measures and that
monitoring extends through the whole RAA. EC also noted for AREVA to use well-established
methodology for recording marine bird data so that it could be integrated with regional databases on
marine bird distributions. EC noted its available information and guidance on developing a marine
bird observation procedure. Finally, EC recommended AREVA present this data during annual
reporting along with ship logs to aid in determining the significance of the impact but also in assessing
the cumulative effects of increased marine shipping in the Arctic on marine birds.416 In its response,
while AREVA acknowledged the presence of marine birds in the LAA and RAA it noted that it did not
expect that the physical presence, movement and noise of marine vessels would have a measureable
411
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, p.
1095-1096, lines 10-16, 24-26 and 8-12.
412 V. Siturat, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1581, lines 1922.
413 M. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1494, lines
21-23.
414 B. Stewart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 397,
lines 9-14.
415 N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 397, lines 15-19.
416 Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 40.
149
effect on bird health, behaviour or habitat given the short duration of vessel operations and the
infrequent number of vessel transits. AREVA clarified that it was willing to collaborate with EC to
include a marine bird observation procedure into the proposed Marine Wildlife Observation Program
and other relevant management plans prior to Project licensing due to the presence of key bird
habitat sites along proposed shipping routes.377
During the Final Hearing, EC recommended that AREVA commit to using standard protocols for
monitoring, the distribution and abundance of marine birds along shipping routes in the Hudson Strait,
as well as the response of marine birds collisions with ships.417 AREVA responded that it has
committed to monitoring its vessels and could further discuss with EC about submitting an annual
report on the information collected for the distribution and abundance of marine birds within the
Hudson Strait.
EC additionally recommended the Proponent check vessels for bird strikes after a suspected event,
keep records and document all bird mortality events in wildlife monitoring reports as well as ship
circumstances, such as if search lights or vessel lighting was active at the time of a strike. EC
recommended that AREVA implement adaptive management if collisions occur more than once and
consult with EC to determine suitable adaptive management and additional mitigation measures.418 In
its response, AREVA agreed and would incorporate a marine bird observation procedure with its
previous commitment.419
During the Final Hearing, EC recommended that AREVA commit to avoiding concentrations of marine
birds, in particular flightless, young, and moulting, if at risk of adverse interactions in shipping lanes. 420
In response, AREVA indicated its reluctance to commit to a ‘tremendous amount’ of ‘unusual
monitoring’ on commercial vessels. AREVA noted further discussions would be required with both the
KIA and EC regarding their respective monitoring and mitigation recommendations.421 Transport
Canada added commentary that the Marine Environmental Handbook publication by DFO for the
Arctic Northwest Passage contained good measures for how a shipmaster can navigate the Arctic
waters and avoid marine wildlife.422
4.15.3
Views of the Board
The Board acknowledges that the scope of marine-related components and activities associated with
the Project is limited to shipping associated with annual resupply during the open water season, as
well as operation of a dock and storage facilities in Baker Lake. The Board notes further that the
Project’s shipping route, though currently used by vessels for both annual resupply to communities in
the Kivalliq region and the Meadowbank Gold Mine, passes along sensitive marine wildlife habitat and
417
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 399, lines
1-5.
418
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 42.
419
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-166 to 2-167.
420
R. Wiacek, Environment Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 400, lines
9-14.
421
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 400-401, lines 26
and 1-2.
422
J. Johar, Transport Canada, Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 406, lines 11-20.
150
areas used for both transportation, recreation and harvesting of wildlife by residents of the region.
The Chesterfield Narrows are also used for caribou migration. The Board would like to highlight the
importance of Inuit Qaujimaningit related to Marine Wildlife, as the Board believes that the potential
impacts of the Project on the abundance and distribution of culturally valued species (e.g., beluga,
seal, walrus, and polar bear) warrants further attention in any future project proposal.
4.15.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit marine environment impacts having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS
AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated (AREVA or the Proponent) described its approach for analyzing
potential socio-economic effects resulting from the Project in Volume 9, Section 4 of its FEIS. AREVA
noted that its approach to the assessment of potential Project induced socio-economic effects was
designed to meet the applicable regulatory requirements as well as focusing on the matters of greatest
economic, social, and cultural importance. AREVA explained that its approach considered the iterative
nature of environmental assessment and considered the integration of engineering design,
environmental effects and management programs for the life of the Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project. The
following steps were used in the analysis:
 Scoping;
 Assessment of Project-related socio-economic effects;
 Evaluation of cumulative socio-economic effects;
 Determination of significance;
 Monitoring; and
 Summary.
AREVA focused its socio-economic assessment on valued socio-economic components (VSECs) of
particular interest to Inuit, regulators, government agencies and stakeholders. AREVA noted that it
selected VSECs to assess through consultations with various parties including Inuit and government
agencies, regulatory issues and guidelines, field studies, and professional judgment. AREVA grouped the
VSECs into the following major socio-economic components:
 Community economies
 Traditional culture
 Individual, family and community wellbeing
 Public infrastructure and services
 Land use and planning
 Economy of Nunavut
AREVA noted that it had assessed the potential for the Project to result in Project-related (including
transboundary) and cumulative effects.
151
AREVA’s socio-economic assessment first considered its socio-economic management framework,
which included the following components:
1. Mitigation and benefit enhancement measures;
2. Ongoing engagement;
3. Integration;
4. Monitoring; and
5. Eventual negotiation and agreement with the Kivalliq Inuit Association of an Impact Benefit
Agreement.
Following this step, AREVA considered experiences in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and
northern Saskatchewan related to large mining projects and in northern Alberta related to rapid
population growth as a result of oil sands development. AREVA’s effects assessment included a
presentation of the mechanisms through which a socio-economic effect may occur (including Project
design, management measures and comparable experiences). AREVA then characterized potential
residual effects by direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, and applied a significance
determination. AREVA differentiated potential cumulative effects as ‘additive’ or ‘more than additive.’
AREVA considered two future scenarios when determining the potential for cumulative effects:

Future scenario: reasonable foreseeable projects, activities and actions that are likely to occur:
Meadowbank Gold Mine, Phase 2 Hope Bay Belt Gold Mine, Meliadine Gold Mine, Mary River
Iron Mine, Hackett River, Back River Gold Mine Project, Izok Corridor Base Metal Mines
Project.

Far future scenario: the future scenario in combination with possible far future developments
in the Kivalliq region. AREVA noted that its assessment of potential cumulative effects was
qualitative due to the lack of details of potential future developments.
AREVA defined the Local Assessment Area (LAA) for all of the valued socio-economic components
except for the ‘Economy of Nunavut’ as the Kivalliq region and its seven communities: Arviat, Baker
Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove. AREVA
defined the LAA for the ‘Economy of Nunavut’ as the communities of Baker Lake and Chesterfield
Inlet. AREVA defined the territory of Nunavut as the Regional Assessment Area (RAA) for the
assessment of the ‘Economy of Nunavut’.
AREVA concluded in Volume 9, Section 6 of the FEIS that public engagement and the integration of
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit are “integral to socio-economic management, monitoring and adjustment.”423
AREVA noted that the integration of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit “was fundamental to all stages of the
assessment, from developing baseline, to the identification of potential Project effects, to the
development of socio-economic management measures in response, to the determination of
significant of residual Project effects.”424 AREVA acknowledged the importance of collecting input in
both English and Inuktitut, and developed mechanisms through its Community Involvement Plan to
encourage meaningful engagement.
423
424
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 6-20.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 4-28.
152
AREVA further provided a list of engagement undertakings in Volume 9 and within its Community
Involvement Plan. AREVA explained that its overall goals were to increase community understanding
about the Project, provide a mechanism for members to express concerns, gather information and ask
questions, to hold meetings through its Community Liaison Committee in Baker Lake and the Regional
Liaison Committee, to provide cross-cultural training and to implement a grievance and dispute
resolution mechanism over the life of the Project. Within Volume 3 of its FEIS, AREVA noted that
“knowledge and understanding of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit culture influences the way in
which AREVA conducts business in Nunavut.”425 AREVA outlined some of its efforts and initiatives that
exemplify the use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles, including: prioritizing face-to-face meetings;
engaging with Elders, youth, hunters, local businesses and others; removing language barriers through
provision of translated materials and availability of translators at meetings; incorporating Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit into mitigation, monitoring and management plans; and participating as a member
of the community through sponsorships.
5.1
Economic Development and Opportunities
5.1.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA developed its Project feasibility study, and assessed the potential direct and indirect Project
effects on economic development and opportunities, by using data from multiple sources including
Statistics Canada, the Government of Nunavut Bureau of Statistics, and relevant mining projects.
AREVA presented its results in Volume 1, Section 8.6 and Volume 9, Sections 8, 13 and 14 of the FEIS.
AREVA further provided socio-economic baseline data in Volume 9, Appendix 9A: Socio-Economic
Baseline. Within Volume 9 of the FEIS, AREVA concluded that the Project would have positive residual
and cumulative effects on economic development and opportunities within the Kivalliq region and
Nunavut as a whole.
AREVA considered the Project to be overall positive and significant, projecting positive impacts to
employment, education, labour force capacity, business development, and economic diversification
over the lifespan of the project. AREVA also predicted that the positive impacts would gain
momentum over time, as the capacity of Kivalliq residents to participate increases. While AREVA
predicted that the opportunities for economic growth would be felt throughout the Local and Regional
Assessment Areas (LAA and RAA), it projected within Volume 9, Section 8 of the FEIS that the benefits
would be realized most strongly in Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet, and secondarily Arviat, as the largest
of the outlying Kivalliq communities.
AREVA predicted that the Project would increase direct and indirect economic activities, which would
result in significant, positive impacts on the LAA and RAA. AREVA predicted that project expenditures
and goods and services in the Kivalliq region would be large relative to the existing economy, and that
spending would facilitate economic diversification driven by changing personal spending habits and
aspirations related to new disposable incomes. AREVA further noted that the labour force would also
425
FEIS, Volume 3, Part 2, p. 1-11.
153
experience some diversification with the creation of new roles and a shift from unemployment or
underemployment to rotational or full-time work for the Kivalliq residents.
AREVA indicated that the greatest potential for negative effects on economic development in the
Kivalliq communities and in Nunavut may be seen in labour market pressures, and inflation in the
prices of goods and services and local wages. AREVA noted the potential for large, temporary
economic shocks in the short-term as new economic conditions created by the Project would result in
regional adjustments and would be felt by individuals in the Kivalliq communities. However, AREVA
opined that these shocks would be temporary and outweighed by long-term positive effects. AREVA
also concluded that unexpected or unplanned Project closure could lead to negative socio-economic
effects.
AREVA asserted that inflation would arise from increased prices for goods and services in the Kivalliq
communities, and increased wage rates in Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet. AREVA noted that inflation is
likely to cause the most harm to society’s most vulnerable members and those who are unable to
access the job market. AREVA further noted that the inflation of wage rates also has the potential to
impact the continued development of the Kivalliq communities, as the hamlets and other community
organizations would struggle to compete with the higher wages offered by the Project. AREVA
predicted that a result of inflation caused by the Project would be negative Project and cumulative
effects. AREVA characterized the magnitude and extent of these negative effects as low, and primarily
affecting individuals in Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet during the construction and operations periods.
AREVA concluded that although there is potential for short term inflation within the Kivalliq
communities, it does not expect that this would result in a significant effect for Nunavut’s economy.
AREVA acknowledged that an early or unplanned closure of the Project would have negative effects on
employment opportunities, local and regional contracting, and incomes. AREVA also discussed that
the potential economic effects of a planned closure would remain somewhat uncertain, and would be
dependent on future economic conditions including the breadth of the mining industry in Nunavut at
the time of closure.
AREVA concluded that potential cumulative effects of multiple large mining projects would be of
significant benefit to the economies of affected communities, as well as the economy of Nunavut as a
whole.Error! Bookmark not defined. AREVA noted that mining projects inevitably close, resulting in negative
economic development opportunities, but that the expected negative effects would be mitigated if
other projects could provide alternative jobs and markets for labour and businesses.
During the Final Hearing, AREVA noted that the “overall objectives of [its] socio-economic monitoring
are to track how many Inuit are employed, complete education and training programs, and have taken
advantage of contracting opportunities over time”.426
5.1.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
In their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association
(NTI/KIA) commented that while the Consumer Price Index for evaluating economic growth and
426
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 458, lines 19-23.
154
performance is a useful indicator for the territory as a whole, the information is based on data
collected from Iqaluit and therefore, “does not provide adequate information as related to consumer
prices in the (Kivalliq) communities.”427 As an alternative, NTI/KIA requested that AREVA utilize
information about the Northern Food Basket for a more accurate indication of the needs and activities
of each community. NTI/KIA further requested that this information be added to the Socio-economic
Baseline volume. In response, AREVA included the revised Northern Food Basket. The Proponent
clarified that prior to the start of construction it would expect to update baseline data for the purpose
of the socio-economic monitoring plan, but “additional baseline data has no implications for the
conclusions of the socio-economic impact assessment” presented in the FEIS.428
NTI/KIA further questioned AREVA on the potential impact that increased incomes would have on
inflation and requested clarification on the proposed mitigation measures. NTI/KIA referenced an
increase in the median individual income for Kivalliq residents before and after the Meadowbank Gold
Mine between 2005 and 2010, where residents saw an income increase of 29%, with the average
individual income in Baker Lake increasing by 43%.429 AREVA responded that while new demand may
generate immediate short-term demand for supply (largely of southern consumption goods), AREVA
did not anticipate a relationship between increased incomes and higher inflation. AREVA further
noted that new business opportunities would emerge in response to increased demand from
increased incomes.430 During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the KIA recommended
that AREVA provide additional clarification on, and conduct ongoing assessment of, the potential
effects of the Project in relation to income and inflation.
Within their final written submissions and during the Final Hearing, NTI/KIA, the Beverly and
Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers
Organization (Baker Lake HTO), and Nunavut Makitagunarningit (Makita) all expressed concerns that
the project would impact the traditional economy of hunting caribou, marine animals and other
wildlife. NTI/KIA, the BQCMB, Baker Lake HTO and Makita discussed the high level of uncertainty in
predicting the impact of the Project on herd numbers and changes to migration patterns. In response
to the KIA during the Final Hearing, AREVA concluded that there would be no significant effects to
wildlife, “and therefore, those conclusions are carried forward into the socio-economic assessment
and lead into our conclusions that the land-based economy as a whole is not compromised.”431
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake HTO requested further clarification regarding AREVA’s
summary of potential residual effects and significance determinations. It questioned why AREVA’s
FEIS categorized hunting under traditional culture rather than community economies, noting that
through discussions with the Baker Lake HTO Board, hunting “is clearly both cultural and economic”.432
427
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, p. 33.
428
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-389.
429
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, p. 36.
430
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015 p. 2-417.
431
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 487, lines 13-17.
432
W. Bernauer, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 5, 2015, p. 514, lines 2-8 and 21-26.
155
AREVA responded that:
The baselines for both Nunavut and Baker Lake address the formal economy, which is covered
under community economies for the impact assessment, and the land-based economy, which is
covered under you – the traditional volume ... “Traditional Culture”. But, yes, it’s clear that
there are two economies.433
AREVA further noted that hunting can be linked to a variety of different components such as food
security, well-being, culture and economics, and that as it is related to food security it would be an
economic issue. AREVA concluded that as socio-economic components are interrelated, it needed to
pick one section with which to discuss hunting. 434
During the Final Hearing, Makita similarly noted that changing caribou migration patterns would affect
the economy of Baker Lake, noting to AREVA:
So you do agree that, if we have trouble catching caribou because the migration pattern has
changed and they’re avoiding the project and they’re going elsewhere, even if the – the herd is
not impacted in terms of population, it will affect our community’s economy.435
AREVA agreed.436
5.1.3 Views of the Board
The Board notes that the information provided by AREVA with respect to economic development and
opportunities generally represents a fair assessment of the baseline conditions, and it recognizes that
the Proponent provided updated information, specifically with regards to the Northern Food Basket, in
response to final written submissions. The Board agrees with the request made by Nunavut Tunngavik
Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association that the Proponent utilize a more useful indicator of the
current consumer prices in the Kivalliq communities and acknowledges AREVA’s commitment to
updating its socio-economic data prior to the commencement of Project construction.
The Board heard concern, which it shared, that broadly based economic development, and the
potential for resulting project-specific and cumulative impacts, in the Kivalliq region would necessarily
follow from mining development. As regards employment at the mine site, the Board understands
that employment opportunities for Inuit would be limited due to the absence of skills in Kivalliq
required for mining. It appeared to the Board that Baker Lake would experience a number of
demands on its infrastructure if the Project were to proceed, and it was not apparent to the Board
that the Hamlet would receive an increase in revenues commensurate with these increased demands.
The Board also has outstanding concerns respecting induced inflationary prices on a region which has
433
S. Ross, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 514, lines 11-18.
S. Ross, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 514 - 515, lines 9-18 and
1-17.
435
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5,
2015, p. 516, lines 1-6.
436
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 516, line 10.
434
156
significant numbers of low income families, and respecting changes to the traditional economy,
including subsistence hunting, which could arise if caribou migration was adversely affected by mining
development.
5.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit economic development and opportunities having regard to information
presented in any future project proposal.
5.2
Employment
5.2.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA made its assessment of the potential direct and indirect Project effects on employment by
using available employment data from the Statistics Canada, the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics, and the
Meliadine Gold Mine and Meadowbank Gold Mine. AREVA presented its results in Volume 1, Section
8.6 and in Volume 9, Sections 6, 13 and 14 of the FEIS. AREVA further provided socio-economic
baseline data in Volume 9, Appendix 9A: Socio-Economic Baseline and proposed mitigation measures
in Volume 9, Appendix 9C: Human Resources Development Plan. AREVA predicted with high
confidence that the Project would have positive effects on employment during the construction and
operations phase, and long-term positive residual effects on the Kivalliq region.
AREVA noted that employment opportunities for both migrant workers and Inuit would vary over the
course of the Project lifespan. AREVA indicated that during the construction phase, the Project would
need to draw on the skilled labour pool and would predominantly hire from southern Canada,
although it would preferentially hire Inuit. AREVA predicted that although locally filled jobs during the
construction phase would likely be unspecialized service roles, these positions are often permanent
year-round, as opposed to seasonal or rotational. AREVA estimated that an average of 750 to 1,200
jobs (the latter during peak stages) would be created during the construction phase and predicted that
of these positions, 15-20% would require unspecialized skills. AREVA noted that demographic data
suggested that 20% of the Kivalliq workforce currently has some experience and training in trades,
transportation, and equipment handling. AREVA predicted that based on experiences at the
Meadowbank Gold Mine, where a reported Inuit workforce fluctuates between 30 and 50%, it
believed that a projected 20% Inuit workforce during the construction phase would be a conservative
goal.437 Lastly, AREVA concluded that up to 150 labour positions would be filled by Kivalliq workers
during the construction phase.438 AREVA predicted that the Project would require an estimated 550
employees, with approximately 150 unspecialized positions, during the operations phase. AREVA
added that it would expect to train up to 120 people to at least a semi-skilled level at educational
institutions in Nunavut and at its mining operations in Saskatchewan, with the resulting potential of
employing approximately 270 Inuit, or approximately 50% of its workforce. However, AREVA
437
Although the AREVA attributes these figures to the Meliadine Gold Mine in Volume 9, p. 8-3 of the FEIS, this is
believed to be an editorial error and the information correctly attributed to the Meadowbank Gold Mine.
438
FEIS, Volume 9, pp. 8-3 - 8-4.
157
cautioned that a 50% Inuit work force was unlikely to be achieved during the early years of the
operations phase.439
AREVA has proposed to maximize employment and contracting opportunities through a variety of
initiatives targeted at preferential training, hiring, contracting and educating Inuit workers from the
Kivalliq region; however, it recognized constraints on its ability to find employees in the Kivalliq region,
citing the requirement of employees to speak English for efficiency and safety reasons as an example
of a potential barrier to meeting Inuit employment targets. Based on available data from the
Meadowbank Gold Mine, the Proponent asserted that there exists a lack of desire among Kivalliq
residents to participate in the wage-based economy, or to work rotationally away from their home
communities. AREVA also noted that data obtained on the Meadowbank Gold Mine suggests that
over 50% of terminations to date have been voluntary resignations, due to child care difficulties,
spousal need, or not finding the work opportunities satisfactory. The Proponent noted, however, that
turnover rates at the Meadowbank Gold Mine have been consistently decreasing, and observed that
this is a predictable and acceptable pattern. AREVA further indicated that it has faced difficultly in
attracting female employees at its other mines and noted that the female workforce at its McClean
Lake site in Saskatchewan was 15%, with a 32% female representation reported for the Meadowbank
Gold Mine in 2013. The Proponent did not reference specific measures that it would propose to
increase the number of female employees, but would regularly review its human resource policy and
various initiatives to identify barriers to employment and develop appropriate response measures.440
AREVA used a Labour Force Growth Rate Scenario derived from the Government of Nunavut Bureau of
Statistics data to develop medium-term projections of local labour availability. Based on these
projections, AREVA concluded that while the initial demand for labour may outstrip local supply,
Nunavut’s workforce is expected to grow. AREVA further noted that the Nunavut labour force is
projected to see over 500 new entrants by 2017, and an additional 500 by 2021. AREVA
acknowledged that it cannot reasonably expect that all available employees would be able and willing
to take up work at the Project. AREVA noted that the Conference Board of Canada projected a
decrease of unemployment rates in Nunavut by 2020, in part in response to mining sector
developments. It further projected that the effect of the Project on community, regional, and
territorial unemployment rates would be highly variable based on external factors in the job market,
and that unemployment would remain a problem challenge in the Kivalliq region, regardless of the
Project.
In addition to proposed measures to employ Inuit workers, AREVA has proposed workforce
management measures, including a Human Resources Development Plan, to “ensure that Inuit
employees are equitably compensated, safe and secure, … [and] that the workforce conditions [would]
promote Inuit culture”.441 These workforce management measures include clear communications, the
provision of an accommodations camp, code of conduct, health and safety training programs,
facilitation of the on-site use of Inuktitut, and the establishment of worker harvest rights and
associated on-site country foods storage. AREVA further noted its policy that prohibits the use of
controlled substances such as drugs and alcohol, and that mitigation and monitoring measures would
439
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 8-10.
FEIS, Volume 9, pp. 6-7, 8-4 and 8-5.
441
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 6-11.
440
158
include random drug testing and provision of employee assistance to those with substance abuse.
AREVA noted that although substance abuse could result in termination, employees would have the
opportunity to be re-employed following successful treatment.
5.2.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) provided comments on AREVA’s Nunavut Employment Practices, as outlined
within its Human Resources Development Plan, and requested that AREVA provide a definition for
‘long term employee’ and clarify whether it would provide any cross-cultural training to non-long term
employees and not just to all long term employees. AREVA responded that it intended to not only
provide cross-cultural initiatives to non-long term employees, but also employ a “spectrum of cross
cultural awareness” during orientation.
Within their final written submissions, NTI/KIA and the Government of Nunavut (GN) shared concerns
that AREVA would not be able to fulfill its projected 50% Inuit employment rate, referring to
experience with other mining activities in the Kivalliq region. The GN requested that AREVA use a
northern context to detail how it would achieve its 50% Inuit employment target given the current
labour shortages in the region and the trend of attracting southern labour to fill these positions.
Within its final written submission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
similarly commented on AREVA’s projected Inuit employment rate and noted that the methodology
and input data it had used was flawed, and as a result AREVA had overestimated the potential Inuit
employment rate. AANDC further noted that AREVA’s projected Inuit target employment rate of 50%
did not reflect the existing data as published by the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics or the reality of
trends as identified at the Meadowbank Gold Mine, specifically with regards to rates of employee
turnover. All parties requested that AREVA provide an updated labour force analysis and projections
clarifying the length of time and the project stage it perceived reaching this target, details on training,
and other measures it plans to undertake to develop Inuit capacity for mine employment.
In response to the final written submissions provided by parties, AREVA noted that it had completed a
revised labor force analysis in September 2014 and concluded that an updated analysis would be
unnecessary for the NIRB’s environmental assessment process. However, it agreed to update its
labour force analysis at intervals, and suggested that this be required 12 months preceding each phase
of the project. AREVA referred to its prediction within the FEIS that Inuit employment would reach 3540% during the first four years of operations and up to 50% by the sixth year. AREVA further
acknowledged that the goal of a 50% Inuit workforce by the sixth year of operations would be
challenging and made reference to contributing factors such as limited education achievement,
challenges of rotational work, and limited participation of women. However, the Proponent also
included a list of countervailing factors which detailed the potential for new entrants into the labour
force, potential moves from part-time seasonal work to full time employment, improved high school
graduation rates, and the attraction of good wages. AREVA agreed to undertake an updated labour
force analysis prior to the completion of licensing.
159
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the GN indicated that it was satisfied with
AREVA’s response by noting its commitment to undertake an updated labour market analysis.442
AANDC also indicated that it had no outstanding concern during its technical presentation and that
AREVA had responded positively to its recommendation by committing to undertake a comprehensive
labour market analysis.443 During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker
Lake discussed its support for the potential employment opportunities that the Project could offer and
noted that the “community of Baker Lake could commit to doing another community labour force
survey” that would include identifying community members willing to work, including their
qualifications and job interests. The Hamlet added that “this would provide a realistic picture of the
ability of this community alone to meet the needs of the workforce required by the proposed
mine”.444
During the Final Hearing, the KIA noted that the hamlets and local government services in Nunavut
communities impacted by ‘short-term large mining projects’ have experienced a loss of skilled workers
and expressed concerns this could occur in the Kivalliq communities as a result of the Kiggavik Project,
particularly as a result of the training options. The KIA asked AREVA to clarify its plans to collaborate
with the Hamlet’s local governments or the KIA to address this potential issue. In response to AREVA’s
reply that it would expect labour force adjustments as a result of the Project, the KIA asked AREVA the
approximate length of time it would expect a labour force adjustment would last, which would enable
the KIA and the Kivalliq hamlets to plan regarding their labour force. The KIA further inquired as to
whether AREVA’s planned socio-economic monitoring would include monitoring of whether mine
employees would return to work for the communities after being employed by the mine. AREVA
responded that it would expect “these labour force adjustments [to] basically play out over the long
run” with the major effects likely to occur within one or two years, and noted that in an effort to
maintain competitive working environments, AREVA “expects to pay competitive wages, not excessive
wages” which could result in greater employment retention by local organizations.445 AREVA added
that it is in discussions with parties, including the KIA, GN and AANDC, to establish a monitoring
program, and added that it would have a participatory component with a focus on community
members. Further, AREVA maintained that while the introduction of a large-scale development
project would result in labour force adjustments, this would result in overall positive benefits as
vacant positions would allow for new recruits to gain training and skilled labour within the
government. AREVA further noted that it believed that many former employees of Agnico Eagle
Mines Limited returned to local government positions in the community of Baker Lake.446 The KIA
442
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, pp. 762-763,
lines 20-26 and 1-26.
443
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 865, lines 6-15.
444
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1229, lines 8-15.
445
S. Ross, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 489-490, lines 23-26 and
3-4.
446
S. Ross, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 488-489, lines 13-26 and
1-11.
160
responded with its position that a labour force adjustment could take “much longer than a year and
may, in some cases, … exceed the construction period.”447
Within its final written submission and during the Final Hearing, the GN further discussed labour force
requirements and noted that to satisfy occupational supply and demand modelling and to contribute
to effective labour market information, the Proponent would need to submit a detailed staff schedule
to the GN and the NIRB that would account for each of the Project phases and requested the schedule
be submitted 12 months prior to the commencement of each period. During the Final Hearing, the GN
explained that this schedule would allow its offices to effectively prepare Nunavummiut for upcoming
employment opportunities by understanding the requirements of each available job in terms of skill
and education.448 Within its response to written submissions AREVA committed to provide this
information to the GN 12 months prior to construction, operations, and decommissioning, pending
Project approval. The GN did not note any outstanding concern regarding AREVA’s response to its
request during the Final Hearing.
Within its final written submission, the GN noted that it was encouraged by the number of strategies
proposed for both employees and their families in overcoming the challenges of rotational work. The
GN noted that given the importance of workforce management it recommended that AREVA develop
an annual reporting structure to assess management strategies as the Project develops. Within its
response to final written submissions, AREVA noted that it agreed that a reporting structure would be
required to assess the socio-economic management strategies throughout the Project and believed
that the functioning of the workforce management strategies would be captured within the mandate
of the Socio-Economic Management Committee. In addition, AREVA noted that it anticipates that
monitoring components would also be developed thought the Inuit Impacts Benefits Agreement, once
negotiated.
Within its final written submission, AANDC commented on potential impacts as a result of a temporary
or early closure and noted that although AREVA had committed to undertake a socio-economic impact
assessment and to develop mitigation measures with regards to community economies in the event of
a permanent planned closure, similar measures were lacking with regards to a potential temporary or
premature closure. AANDC recommended that AREVA provide additional detail with regards to
proposed mitigation measures to be undertaken in the event of a premature or temporary closure.
Within its response to parties’ final written submissions, AREVA noted that it had not provided more
specific mitigation measures as potential effects resulting from a premature or temporary closure
would be dependent on multiple time-specific factors, including the length of a temporary closure and
the economic and social development in the Kivalliq region at the time of a closure. AREVA further
noted that it had provided an effects analysis and potential mitigation strategies in Volume 9 of the
FEIS. AREVA further reiterated that it would conduct a socio-economic impact study in the event a
closure decision is made and referenced sections within its FEIS that included proposed mitigation
measures and effects based on the experiences of other northern mining projects.
447
B. Parlee, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No, 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 490,
lines 21-26.
448
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcripts, March 6, pp. 762-763,
lines 20-26 and 1-26.
161
In response to AANDC’s technical presentation during the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake
commented on the potential for a premature or temporary closure and asked AANDC what would
types of potential effects resulting from such a closure it believed would be cause for concern.449
Although AANDC deferred the question to AREVA, it noted that per its mandate its focus was on the
type of mitigation measures AREVA would employ, including collaboration with other stakeholders to
mitigate the potential effects.450 AREVA responded that the specific potential effects resulting from a
temporary or early closure would be dependent on the current economic conditions, specifically on
the timing of other mines in the area and noted that if the closure of the Meadowbank Gold Mine
overlapped with the opening of the Kiggavik Project, it would expect there to be positive benefits as
employees could transfer their skills and training from one project to the next. However, AREVA
added that in the event of a premature closure, if there were no projects available to provide
employment, the potential effects would be more negative than for a planned closure.451
Within its final written submission, AANDC noted that there was a lack of information on potential
socio-economic impacts and benefits within the FEIS regarding transboundary groups and requested
additional information related to employment projections on non-Inuit Aboriginal groups who have
expressed an interest in the Project. Within its response to final written submissions of parties, AREVA
noted that it did not predict significant environmental effects within or outside Nunavut and therefore
did not predict effects on non-Inuit Aboriginal groups. AREVA stated that it consequently did not
develop plans related to transboundary economic benefits and noted that non-Inuit Aboriginal people
would not be given preferential employment. During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing,
AANDC noted AREVA’s response to its concerns and did not indicate any outstanding concern
regarding employment.452
A community member, and the President of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, expressed
concerns during the Final Hearing that female mine employees experience different effects than their
male counterparts, including harassment, and noted that it had conducted, in partnership with the
University of Baker Lake, a study in Baker Lake on women’s experiences in mining. It was noted that
the research indicates that female mining positions are typically un-skilled and women face many
barriers to advancing:
We know that women are affected differently than men when they work at a mine site. Some
findings at the existing mine [Meadowbank Gold Mine] were that many of the positions held
by women, as one might expect, were found in the housekeeping and kitchen work. Of the
total Inuit employed at the mine, 52 percent are what is classified as an unskilled job. Only one
Inuk held a position at the management level. However, as of December 2010, the haul truck
driver team at the mine were mostly Inuit. Of 60 Inuit working as haul truck drivers, 14 were
women, with one woman being a haul truck instructor.
449
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 6, 2015, p. 883, lines 615.
450
T. Fast, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 6,
2015, pp. 883-884, lines 19-26 and 1-13.
451
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, pp. 884-885, lines 20-26 and 112.
452
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 861-862, lines 17-26 and 1-5.
162
Women identified lack of resources, lack of daycare facilities. They reported impacts affecting
their children. Daycare by elders or older siblings and relatives took over, which also affected
school attendance. Women asked for changes in daycare in the community. Women reported
incidents where they were harassed and treated with disrespect. They reported incidents of
racism and unacceptable behaviour.453
In response to this concern, AREVA noted that at its female employees represent approximately 1518% of its workforce and that they occupy more than just ‘entry-level, janitorial, and housekeeping’
positions and outlined some of the professional positions female employees occupy. Furthermore,
AREVA expressed its commitment to reducing harassment of female employees and enacting
strategies to ensure women’s success at the mine.454
During the Final Hearing, the youth community representative from Coral Harbour also questioned
AREVA on the types of employment that would be available to Inuit and specifically asked who AREVA
would hire to undertake its marine monitoring and whether these positions would be filled internally
or by Inuit from the Kivalliq region.455 AREVA responded that it intends to employ local marine
monitors from the Kivalliq communities, and would select those employed in collaboration with the
local Hunters and Trappers Organizations. AREVA explained that it would provide some training in
regards to collecting data that would be used to improve shipping.456
The youth community representative from Coral Harbour further expressed concerns about the
potential use of drugs and alcohol at the mine site, and questioned AREVA on its policy to manage and
mitigate potential related issues:
I’m not pointing fingers to anyone, but I was – when – when talking with a – a lady from the
south there before I came here, she – she gave me a very good point on socio-economics. I
don’t – I don’t know if all mines are like that, but she had a very big concern on drug using,
drug users, and so far I have not seen any – any of this type of action that you guys might take,
especially cocaine and whatnot. Because … from her experience, she has noticed that when
mines started in remote locations, all this type of stuff started to occur afterwards within a
small settlement on the mines.457
AREVA responded that drug and alcohol use is a concern and noted that, at its operations in
Saskatchewan, employees are pre-screened through a drug testing program. Those who test positive
during pre-screening are given the opportunity to retest at a later date and to be re-employed. AREVA
further noted that on-site it would administer random drug testing and searches with the assistance of
trained dogs. AREVA noted that through these mitigation measures, drug and alcohol related
453
R. Kudloo, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10,
2015, pp. 1662-1663, lines 11-26 and 1-6
454
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1664-1665, lines 1-26
and 1-18.
455
D. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 10, 2015, p. 1484, lines 15-20.
456
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 10, 2015, p. 1485, lines 13-23.
457
D. Matoo, Coral Harbour, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 10, 2015, pp. 1484-1485, lines 22-26
and 1-10.
163
instances had been reduced. Lastly, AREVA noted that employee assistance plans were available for
employees caught under the influence to attend rehabilitation treatment centres, and would be given
the opportunity to return to work.458 AREVA added that it would collaborate with parties, including
the KIA and the GN, to monitor the positive and negative effects, including drug and alcohol use, and
to provide support to those in need.459
One community representative commented on AREVA’s commitment to provide a culturally
appropriate service to workers and asked if country food would be available on-site to Inuit
workers.460 AREVA responded that it does “anticipate that there will be some sort of mechanism for
people to have country food when they’re at site, so they can feel comfortable in … eating the food
they prefer, and we need to find a way to make that available”.461
5.2.3 Views of the Board
The Board appreciates the Proponent’s goal of achieving a 50% Inuit workforce and acknowledges that
AREVA has proposed a variety of initiatives for preferential Inuit hiring and multiple workforce
management measures, as presented within its Human Resources Development Plan. However, the
Board notes multiple comments raised by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), the Government of
Nunavut (GN) and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) that this target is
unrealistic and not supported by current and relevant data. The Board shares the concerns raised by
Parties and believes that AREVA’s estimates of employment rates were unrealistically optimistic based
on the current data available and experience noted at other mine sites in the Kivalliq region.
The Board shares the view expressed by NTI and the KIA that a Project-induced labour force
adjustment could last “much longer than a year and may, in some cases … exceed the construction
period.”462 The Board acknowledges the additional concern, raised during the Final Hearing, that
employees of the local governments, organizations and businesses, might leave their local
employment positions to work at the mine site. The Board appreciates the Proponent’s support of
collaborative monitoring.
Although the Board notes that AREVA has committed to establishing a project specific monitoring
program in collaboration with the KIA, GN and AANDC, the Board does not find that AREVA socioeconomic effects assessment and responses during the Final Hearing, including the statement that
“these labour force adjustments [would] basically play out over the long run”445 provided enough
qualitative and quantitative information for the Board to maintain confidence that the Project would
not result in a potential adverse impact to the hamlets and other local organizations and businesses.
458
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1485-1487, lines 2526, 1-26, and 1-9.
459
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1487, lines 10-26.
460
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1575, lines
10-15.
461
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1575, lines 19-23.
462
B. Parlee, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 490,
lines 21-26.
164
The Board appreciates AREVA’s acknowledgement that a premature closure could result in more
adverse effects than for a planned closure and that a comprehensive effects assessment and
development of mitigation measures for premature or temporary closure would be contingent on the
socio-economic environment at the time of such a closure.
The Board notes the comments and concerns raised by the President of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of
Canada regarding the potential adverse effects of mining on women. The Board further acknowledges
that the Proponent had incorporated the findings of a report produced by the Pauktuutit Inuit Women
of Canada to support anecdotal evidence collected. The Board agrees that the concerns of the
President of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada have merit.
5.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit employment issues having regard to information presented in any future project
proposal.
5.3
Education and Training
5.3.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA discussed the existing education levels in the Kivalliq region and assessed its proposed
mitigation and benefit enhancement measures with regards to education and training and the
predicted resulting Project effects in Volume 1, Sections 7.7 and 8.6 and Volume 9 of the FEIS. AREVA
further provided socio-economic baseline data in Volume 9, Appendix 9A: Socio-Economic Baseline
and proposed mitigation measures in Volume 9, Appendix 9C: Human Resources Development Plan.
AREVA concluded that its proposed education and training programs would contribute to higher rates
of success for those interested in employment within the wage and land based economy. AREVA
further noted that its education and training initiatives are not just focused on Project specific needs
but include broader initiatives to encourage youth to stay in school.
Within Volume 9 of its FEIS, the Proponent stated that graduation rates in the Kivalliq region are well
below Canadian averages, noting that 2006 education trends in the region showed less than 40% of
adults obtained a high school diploma. AREVA asserted that although it used community level data
from the 2006 national census as its baseline data and to highlight trends within the Kivalliq
communities, “it is still generally representative of educational trends in the region”.463 AREVA
discussed that the low levels of education achievement observed were relative not only to the rest of
Canada, but to the other communities in Nunavut, with Rankin Inlet being the exception. AREVA
observed that there is evidence that educational achievement has decreased from 1996 to 2006 and
that 52% of Kivalliq residents did not have any high school education compared to 43% in 2001.
However it noted a positive trend related to the gender gap, noting an increase in female students
attending and graduating high school. AREVA cautioned that this gap remains present with fewer
females attending higher levels of school. AREVA further noted that it observed a difference between
anecdotal evidence and the census data, noting that the former indicated that some of the negative
463
FEIS, Volume 9, p. E-ii.
165
trends observed in the 2006 data have reversed themselves, at least in some of the Kivalliq
communities. AREVA concluded that the data it used is still indicative of challenges faced by Kivalliq
community members.464
AREVA noted that through consultation, Inuit expressed a strong interest in participating in training
programs to gain the skills necessary to access employment opportunities in the Nunavut mining
sector and that this interest was also influenced by the Government of Nunavut’s (GN) training
programs located throughout the territory. AREVA believed that on the job training is beneficial to
Kivalliq communities by enhancing job performance and promotion of skilled laborers, as well as the
subsequent opening up of less skilled positions for new workers. The Proponent noted that job
experience and training in many of the mine positions are transferrable skills and that AREVA trained
workers could bring the skills acquired back to their home communities.
AREVA committed to providing Project-related education and training programs, including assistance
to those who wish to develop the necessary skills for Project employment and contracting. Assistance
would include pre-employment programs, educational institution based programs including
apprenticeships and technical programs, and training for businesses. AREVA stated that it has multiple
training initiatives planned for Kivalliq residents during the Project’s construction and operations
phases. AREVA indicated that it would offer some training to Kivalliq residents at its mine site in
northern Saskatchewan during the Kiggavik Project’s construction phase to prepare participants for
working at the mine during the operations phase. However, the Proponent clarified that the majority
of its planned training initiatives would be focused on ‘on the job’ training over the operations phase
as the project builds to AREVA’s goal of a 50% Inuit permanent workforce. AREVA noted the potential
for some work crews to work in Inuktitut, which could potentially open the labour pool and enhance
job satisfaction.
The Proponent committed within Volume 9, Section 8 of its FEIS to develop education and training
initiatives in collaboration with governments, education authorities, and communities that would be
focused on increasing the overall educational achievement levels in the Kivalliq region. AREVA noted
that its goals are in line with that of the GN to provide the tools children need to graduate high school,
to proceed to postsecondary education or training, as well as to increase services to Inuit in Inuktitut.
AREVA concluded that it would reassess both the ‘delivery and uptake of education’ closer to the start
of Project construction to most accurately assess the current needs and identify the most applicable
measure to take.
AREVA’s proposed uranium specific training and education initiatives are discussed in Section 6.1:
Human Health and Risk Assessment.
5.3.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) commented on the Proponent’s methodology used to assess various educational
related indicators which focused on the total population in all of the Kivalliq communities. NTI/KIA
requested that AREVA update the Socio-Economic Baseline section (Volume 9, Appendix 9A) to include
464
FEIS, Volume 9, Appendix 9A, pp. 4-40 - 4-47.
166
information on education-related indicators for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations for all of
the Kivalliq communities, the Kivalliq region, and the whole of Nunavut. NTI/KIA also requested that
AREVA clarify the types of future engagement programs it plans to administer with regards to
employee training and add its response to the Community Involvement Plan. Within its final written
submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) noted that AREVA had committed to working with the
Department of Education to develop a variety of initiatives to promote the high school completion
levels and to encourage mine related career paths. Similar to NTI/KIA, the GN recommended that
AREVA update its Human Resource Development Plan to include comprehensive details of its
proposed programs and initiatives and further recommended that it collaborate with the GNDepartment of Education in carrying out these programs and noted that the two parties should
develop a Memorandum of Agreement with regards to any collaborate project or initiative. The GN
asked AREVA to provide additional information with regards to the following proposed programs and
initiatives: on-site high school completion program; the development and implementation of high
school and college courses with mining sector content; “stay-in-school” initiatives; post-secondary
scholarships; contributions to youth programs intended to develop traditional skills; and a description
of similar programs to the Award of Excellence.
Within its response to the final written submissions provided by NTI/KIA, AREVA referenced Statistics
Canada’s education data for total and aboriginal populations for 2006 and 2011 and noted that
Statistics Canada does not make available data on Chesterfield Inlet’s Aboriginal identity population.
AREVA concluded that it would not revise and resubmit the Socio-Economic Baseline section and
indicated that this would have no implications for the socio-economic assessment. AREVA referred to
a previous response wherein it committed to updating its baseline data when applicable data that
would be pertinent to its monitoring program prior to the start of construction. With regards to future
engagement programs, AREVA noted that its Community Involvement Plan would be periodically
reviewed and revised, and that it would consider NTI/KIA’s recommendations for future revisions of
the Plan. Within its response to final written submissions submitted by the GN, AREVA agreed to
discuss a potential Memorandum of Agreement with the GN-Department of Education and further
agreed that it should regularly update its Human Resource Development Plan.
During the Final Hearing, NTI asked the GN to clarify the measures it was undertaking with regards to
training and educating Inuit to take on potential mine related opportunities, specifically to
opportunities beyond a Grade 12 high school diploma and to education required for specialized
fields.465 The GN responded that all of the schools in Nunavut have senior high school courses that are
developed to meet the entrance requirements of up to 26 universities, as well as technology skills
courses. The GN noted that although not all courses would be developed for post-secondary
education, students would be “well positioned to enter a trades program”. The GN added that it had
mining matters curriculum in the Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet schools that is intended to be integrated
into the science curriculum and to position students for mining related employment and jobs with
technical requirements.466
465
H. Uniuqsaraq, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6,
2015, p. 780, lines 2-12.
466
L. Kamermans, Government of Nunavut, NIRB File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 781, lines 1-26.
167
Within its final written submission, the GN discussed the role of the Department of Family Services’
Apprenticeship Unit and noted that pursuant to Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the
departmental unit would like all Nunavut resident apprentices to be registered and monitored, and
recommended that all apprenticeship training initiatives be undertaken in concurrence with the GN
Department of Family Services, Career Development Division as well as in accordance with the
Apprenticeship, Trade, and Occupations Certification Act. Within its response to final written
submissions, AREVA agreed to collaborate with the GN and committed to identifying and registering
all trades occupations, journeypersons and apprentices working within the Project operations. During
its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the GN indicated that it was satisfied with AREVA’s
commitment.467
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake commented on
AREVA’s proposed training opportunities for Baker Lake community members and questioned
whether these would be focused towards entry-level positions. The Hamlet noted that “there should
be allowances for people to enter into professional careers” and that “this type of training or
education provides people with more options when the mine and mill are past closure”.468 The
Hamlet recommended that through collaborative efforts by AREVA, NTI, the KIA and federal and
territorial agencies, that multiple job-readiness programs and strategies could be formed that include,
but are not limited to: project-based community educations strategy and plan; stay-in-school
programs; training for specific targeted jobs; and additional pre-employment orientation programs
that would encourage life skills necessary for successful entry into the workforce.469
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson (Ms. Hughson) noted during the Final Hearing the importance of education
and training, particularly for youth, and shared similar concerns as the Hamlet of Baker Lake that the
training initiatives made by the Proponent were geared towards entry-level positions. Ms. Hughson
commented on the lack of Inuktitut speakers representing the Proponent or intervenors during the
Final Hearing and that with regards to the Project “there is no shame in waiting until we, as the
people, are ready to take these careers and jobs and not just the bottom rung jobs that we are offered
or qualified to take at the moment”.470
During the Final Hearing, a community member from Baker Lake commented on AREVA’s goal of
having a 50% Inuit labour force for the Kiggavik Project and noted “I don’t see this becoming a
reality.”471 The community member further inquired as to the type of training that AREVA would be
offering to Kiggavik residents. In its response, AREVA acknowledged the scepticism surrounding its
goal of reaching a 50% Inuit workforce and maintained that it hopes to achieve it. Furthermore,
AREVA noted that as a result of training through the Meadowbank Gold Mine, there would be more
available workers to take on job positions that are not entry-level or unspecialized. AREVA observed
467
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 764,
lines 3-15.
468
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1230, lines 2-7.
469
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1230, lines 8-25.
470
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, Registered Intervenor, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015,
p. 1384, lines 16-19.
471
R. Ningeocheak, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing No. 09MN003, March 11, 2015, p. 1873, line 76.
168
that the Meadowbank Gold Mine had reported a 31% Inuit workforce in 2013 and noted that while it
does not expect to reach these numbers within the first years of the Project, it committed to provide
150 unspecialized positions and “over 100 training positions prior to the start of production.”472
A community member commented on the lack of higher education within the Inuit population and
suggested that AREVA wait 15 to 20 years to allow time for the younger generation to transition to
fully participate and to receive the training necessary to be able to work in different positions at the
Project.473 The Grade 11 Social Studies Class from the Jonah Amit’naaq Secondary School further
asked what the minimum required education level would be to be considered for employment. 474
AREVA responded that it intends to set the minimum requirement as the completion of Grade 12 and
noted that it is committed to training Inuit to have careers at the mine and would work with them to
ensure they achieved employment in higher positions. AREVA further stated that it would like to
collaborate with stakeholders, including the GN, KIA, hamlets and regional associations, to develop
pre-employment training opportunities to ensure Inuit could access a variety of entry-level and higherlevel positons.475
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff questioned AREVA on the details of its proposed high school
completion program, including whether participating staff would be financially compensated for the
time spent working towards their diploma, how attendance would be scheduled in relation to
scheduled shifts, and how many employees it expected to benefit from the program as employment is
contingent on high school completion. AREVA indicated that it would offer a high school completion
program to fill positions where the high school completion requirement may be the only barrier to
employment, and that this would involve classroom work on ‘company time’ as well as homework
requirements. The Proponent emphasized that it would be advocating for youth to stay in school to
finish their high school education.476
During the Final Hearing, the Board requested that AREVA if, with the absence of a Project start date,
would commit to participate in or fund “well-defined or profession-specific educational programs that
focus on training potential employees for professional positions … within their company or with its
contractors” if the Project would be approved.477 Further, the Board asked if AREVA had engaged in
discussions with the GN though the Nunavut Arctic College in regards to its future training needs. In
response, AREVA outlined different training options it had considered, including AREVA driven training
as well as initiatives that it envisioned undertaking in collaboration with other stakeholders. AREVA
committed to designing a training program similar to the one employed by Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
that identifies potential ‘career paths’ employees could take within the company and would include
472
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp. 1875-1876, lines
14-26 and 1-25.
473
J. Mautarinaaq, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p.
2213, lines 4-23.
474
Amit’naaq Secondary School Grade 11 Presentation and Questions, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 13, 2015, p. 2172, lines 21-25.
475
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p. 2173, lines 1-22.
476
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 527, lines 5-26.
477
K. Kaluraq, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 538, lines 17-25.
169
senior professional positions.478 AREVA further stated that it had committed to talking with education
institutions and that it has participated in the Nunavut Mining roundtable and the Kivalliq Mine
Training Society advisory group.479 The Board raised further concerns on training as aboriginal people
in the area do not have experience in this type of mining and the type of training plans that would be
put in place. AREVA responded that training would be in place including more unique/special training
specifically related to uranium mining such as radiation training.480
5.3.3 Views of the Board
The Board notes that parties identified the current lack of higher education achievement within
Nunavut, and is of the view that this is not well aligned with government goals regarding mining
development in Nunavut. The Board encourages governments and industry to work collaboratively to
lay the foundation for higher educational achievement, with particular regard to education and
training programs, including cooperative programs, which would qualify Nunavummiut for
employment in the mining sector in Nunavut and across Canada. Recognizing that mining
development is a government objective, the Board encourages the development of education and
training which would qualify Nunavummiut now for employment for all positions in the mining
industry. Nunavummiut would then be able to seek employment, and gain useful experience, in
mining industries across Canada, many of which utilize a fly in / fly out workforce which Nunavummiut
could form a part of.
5.3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit education and training issues having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal.
5.4
Contracting and Business Opportunities
5.4.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA discussed its assessment and proposed mitigation and benefit enhancement measures with
regards to contracting and business opportunities within Volume 1, Section 8.6 and within Volume 9,
Sections 6 and 8 of its FEIS. AREVA predicted with a high degree of confidence that in regards to
contracting and other business opportunities, the Project would result in a long-term positive residual
effects (net benefit) to the local and regional assessment areas established for the Project.481
AREVA noted that the majority of smaller businesses in the Kivalliq region are predominantly aimed at
meeting the “consumption needs of the resident population rather than the needs of large mining
projects,” and that as a result many local companies have limited experience and capacity that would
enable them to meet the needs of the Project, including management and logistics of goods and/or
478
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 539, lines 1-14.
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 544, lines 2-7.
480
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 165, lines 7-22.
481
FEIS, Volume 9, Table 14.1-1.
479
170
services.482 However, AREVA noted within its assessment on Community Economies that the capacity
of local business to successfully bid on and supply goods and services to the mining sector is increasing
due to the existing Meadowbank Gold Mine and the proposed Meliadine Gold Mine projects in the
Kivalliq region. Using data provided by Cumberland Resources Incorporated and Agnico Eagle Mines
Limited in regards to the Meadowbank Gold Mine and Meliadine Gold Mine projects, AREVA
concluded that between 33% and 56% of expenditures spent on the two projects were dispensed to
Nunavut, predominantly in the Kivalliq region. AREVA noted that throughout the exploration and
development phases of the Project, approximately $17 million had been paid out in Nunavut
(approximately 25% of the total project expenditures to date), again primarily in the Kivalliq region.483
AREVA further indicated that the transfer of expenditures would primarily be facilitated through
increased spending by businesses and by southern workers spending their wages earned outside of
the territory. AREVA predicted that the “real economic boost to communities” would derive from
Kivalliq employees reinvesting their wages into the region and from local businesses hiring Kivalliq
residents to meet the demand of the large mining companies.
AREVA estimated that the total expenditures on contracted goods and services during the four year
construction phase would reach $1,200 million. AREVA noted that if 20% of expenditures during the
construction phase were to be are paid out in the Kivalliq region, this would represent approximately
$240 million (approximately $60 million annually). AREVA projected that Project expenditures on
goods and services during the operations phase would be approximately $145 million a year from
2021 to 2035 and noted that as a result, and using 20% as a low end target, approximately $30 million
would be expended in the Kivalliq region annually.
AREVA noted that although the capacity of local and regional businesses to meet the demand of large
mining operations is increasing, it predicted that it may take time for businesses in the Kivalliq region
to meet a rapidly increasing demand for labour, capital and management systems. AREVA indicated
that it aims to provide opportunity and to facilitate the level of capacity and competitiveness of Inuit
firms to supply goods and services to the mining sector both in the short and long term. AREVA has
committed to preferentially hiring, training and educating, and contracting within the Kivalliq region.
Proposed mitigation strategies include:
482
483

Developing a position devoted to business development in the Kivalliq region;

Contributing to a regularly updated database of potential Kivalliq suppliers;

Making awarded business contracts and upcoming procurement requirements publically
available;

Developing contracting procedures and hosting workshops;

Potentially breaking down procurement packages; and

Collaboration with the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) and other interested parties to develop
and support training programs.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 6-8.
FEIS, Volume 9, pp. 8-13 - 8-15.
171
Within its assessment of potential impacts to local businesses and services as a result of temporary or
final closure, AREVA discussed the instability that individual mining projects can produce in Nunavut’s
small economy as expenditure patterns fluctuate. Using statistics provided by the Government of
Nunavut (GN) and Statistics Canada, AREVA observed that the expenditures for goods and services
from the Meadowbank Gold Mine, as the current large mining project in the Kivalliq region, drastically
reduced at the end of the construction phase in 2009, which resulted in increased dependence of the
economy on the government in 2010. AREVA noted that there would be potential for the Kiggavik
Project’s closure to produce equal, or larger, impacts to the economy of Nunavut as the Meadowbank
Gold Mine produced at the end of its construction phase. AREVA clarified that the potential impact(s)
of any Project closures on employment levels and contracted businesses would largely be dependent
on whether there would be any other large mining projects in the region to ‘fill the gap’ that the
Project would leave behind. AREVA noted that it expects that with increased capacity, as well as
contributions to wellbeing, and increased government and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated revenues,
businesses would be able to absorb some of the negative effects of closure in the event there is “not a
full replacement economic activity to transition to.”484
Within the local assessment area, AREVA predicted that the greatest benefit to contracting and
business opportunities would be realized in the communities of Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet as they
would be the closest in proximity to future known mine development and the majority of registered
businesses and non-Inuit majority owned joint ventures are located in the two communities. AREVA
further noted that Baker Lake is situated as the closest community to two-thirds of the projected
mining activities in the region, and will likely serve as a centre for mining activities, and that Rankin
Inlet already realizes cost advantages as the supply and services hub for the region.
5.4.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within its final written submission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
noted that AREVA had committed to undertake a socio-economic impact assessment and develop
mitigation measures for potential negative effects of permanent planned closure on community
economies. However, it further noted that the Proponent did not make similar commitments in the
event of a temporary or premature closure, irrespective of collaboration with communities and
government to develop appropriate mitigation measures. AANDC further noted that it was unclear
whether AREVA’s proposed mitigation plans to increase the capacity of Kiggavik individuals and
businesses to enable them to engage in other economic activities were based on experiences from
mines within Nunavut or elsewhere. Within its response to final written submissions, AREVA noted
that potential mitigation measures for premature (final) or temporary closure would depend on the
regional and territorial economic context at the time of such a closure. AREVA further provided a list
of conditions that would affect potential impacts, whether positively or negatively. AREVA re-iterated
that new business suppliers would be most negatively impacted by a Project closure in the event that
there were no alternative business opportunities available. Lastly, AREVA noted that it included the
experiences of premature (final) and/or temporary closures of mining projects in Nunavut within its
analysis. During the Final Hearing, AANDC noted that AREVA provided additional details and
committed to monitoring efforts in collaboration with the Kivalliq Socio-economic Monitoring
Committee, particularly in the event of a temporary or premature permanent closure. AANDC did not
484
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 8-28.
172
note any outstanding concerns during the Final Hearing and indicated that its concerns noted in the
final written submission had been resolved by AREVA.485
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake noted in its technical presentation that local
businesses would continue to “upgrade their services” in anticipation of further mine demand.486
Also during the Final Hearing, a NIRB Board Member asked AREVA to clarify its expected plans to
encourage and facilitate the effective participation of small businesses in providing goods and/or
services for the Project. AREVA responded that it would employ a ‘business development staff
person,’ who would undertake a community liaison function,487 and that part of its plan in ensuring
small businesses can access and successfully participate in the process would include: developing
relationships in the communities; advertising and providing notice on upcoming contracts; and
designing the work packages in a way that ensures local and prospective contractors can successfully
bid.488
5.4.3 Views of the Board
The Board finds that the information provided by AREVA with respect to contracting and business
opportunities provides an accurate assessment of the baseline conditions. The Board appreciates that
AREVA discussed the potential limitations to local businesses in meeting the needs of the Kiggavik
Project, at least in the initial Project phases.
Should AREVA advance the Project at a future time, the Board encourages AREVA to further engage
with the Hamlet, and other communities in Kivalliq and Nunavut, and their local businesses, to more
effectively assess the ability for local business to provide goods and services to the Project.
The Board appreciates AREVA’s acknowledgement that a premature closure could result in more
adverse effects than for a planned closure and that a comprehensive effects assessment and
development of mitigation measures for premature or temporary closure would be contingent on the
socio-economic environment at the time of such a closure.
The Board further supports AREVA’s commitment to collaborative monitoring in the form of the
Kivalliq Socio-economic Committee. However, the Board shares concerns with AANDC that there was
a lack of detail with regards to potential effects and proposed mitigation measures in the event of
premature or temporary closure, particularly as relates to local contractors and businesses hired for
the Project.
485
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 862, lines 1-5.
486
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1233, lines 8-13.
487
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1576, lines 7-14.
488
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1583, lines 12-26.
173
The Board is further concerned that the lack of a clear project start date impeded the Proponent’s
ability to clearly assess the potential Project effects related to contracting and business opportunities
and to develop appropriate mitigation measures due to a lack of socio-economic context.
5.4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit contracting and business opportunities having regard to information presented
in any future project proposal.
5.5
Benefits, Royalties, and Taxation
5.5.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA discussed the potential Project effects from expected benefits, royalties and taxes within
Volume 1, Section 8.6 and Volume 9 of the FEIS. AREVA predicted an overall net positive effect to the
regional assessment area (RAA) of Nunavut as a result of royalties and taxation attributable to the
project. However, it clarified that during different stages of the project phases, particularly as
construction ramps up and down, production ramps up, and during closure, the economy of Nunavut
could experience some ‘bumps or swings’. AREVA further noted that some of these bumps could have
the potential to “introduce some volatility in Nunavut’s economic performance.”489
AREVA used simulations run by Statistics Canada through an interprovincial input/output model to
estimate the economic effects of the Project on Nunavut, other provinces and territories, and Canada
as a whole for each of the construction and operations phases. AREVA identified that there is a three
year lag period Statistics Canada’s model development and that the model inputs were based on 2007
data; AREVA noted that the data does not include large mine construction or operating mines and that
extreme caution is warranted when analyzing the model outputs. AREVA noted that the model
outputs are considered “in consultation with Statistics Canada, to be approximately correct … [and]
cautiously interpreted”.490 AREVA further noted additional limitations to the model, including that
the price of uranium in 2007 was exceptionally high, double what it had been in previous years,
what it was in subsequent years or is expected to be over the life cycle of the AREVA project.
This does not affect the construction phase model run, does not have an effect on the results
for direct employment and labour income, and has only small effect on indirect and induced
employment and labour income, but it does have a very large effect on GDP.491
AREVA predicted that the average annual increase to the Nunavut Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
during the construction phase would be over $160 million, or approximately 13% of the Nunavut GDP
in 2010. Using the Conference Board of Canada’s projections, AREVA projected that the actual effect
of the Project on the Nunavut GDP would be approximately 10%, and would account for a smaller
percentage of the territorial GDP as the economy grows. AREVA also predicted that if there were no
other large projects, the contribution of the Project during the construction phase on the Nunavut
489
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 13-1.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 13-2.
491
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 13-3.
490
174
GDP would range from approximately 6% in 2017 to 15% in 2019. AREVA noted that Nunavut’s share
of the production taxes (e.g., from goods and services taxes and gas taxes) would account for
approximately 1% of the territory’s own generated tax revenues.
AREVA acknowledged that taxes, royalties, and other fiscal benefits accrued to the territory would
only be accrued during the operations phase of the Project, however, it noted that during the
construction phase the Government of Nunavut (GN) would receive small increases to revenues in the
form of income and payroll taxes for newly hired construction employees, as well as corporate taxes
on Nunavut businesses contracted to supply the Project. AREVA predicted that the annual cumulative
income, payroll and corporate taxes collected during the construction phase would likely be a
minimum of $2.5 million, which would result in an increase of approximately 2.5% in GN source
revenues. AREVA noted that it recalculated the potential Project effects on GDP at the price for
Uranium price it estimates would be economically viable.
AREVA noted the following list of assumptions that would be present during the anticipated 14 year
operations phase when it calculated the potential taxes and royalties that would be accrued by the
Government of Canada, the GN, and NTI:

An annual production of 3,200 tonnes of uranium;

A minimum of $74 US currency per lb of U3O8 ;

Current corporate tax rates in Nunavut and Canada;

That 35% of the mined uranium would be derived from Crown land and the remaining 65%
from NTI land; and

That 50% of annual royalties on the first $2 million from uranium mined on Crown land
would be paid to the federal government and 5% of the remaining 50% would be paid to
NTI.
AREVA noted that during the operations phase, it would be paying corporate taxes and royalties to the
Government of Canada, the GN, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI). AREVA predicted that the
total taxes and royalties to be paid to the above noted parties would be approximately $1 billion with
$19 million expected to annually accrue to the GN and NTI, each. AREVA explained that NTI currently
uses royalties accrued to fund its programs for Inuit beneficiaries. AREVA outline that the corporate
taxes and royalties that would accrue over the course of the Project would be a function of:
 Annual production levels;
 Market price of uranium; and
 Legislative and regulatory conditions governing taxes and royalties, and their distribution.
AREVA indicated that pursuant to Schedule 26-1 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) it
would be negotiating an Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement (IIBA) with the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA),
which is expected to include contractual conditions (including arbitration, amendment and
enforceability) and 16 areas as depicted in the NLCA, which are comprised of, but not be limited to:
Inuit training levels and business opportunities, housing, and research and development. AREVA
added that the criteria listed in Schedule 26-1 of the NLCA overlaps with the VSECs included in and
evaluated in its FEIS. AREVA noted within the FEIS that it expects that the IIBA would address the
potential impact mitigation and benefit enhancement measures to be implemented and the methods
175
by which this would be done. The two parties continued to negotiate the IIBA at the production of the
FEIS and negotiations had not been completed by the time the Final Hearing record closed.
With a high degree of confidence, AREVA predicted that the Project would potentially result in
significant positive benefits to the Regional Assessment Area and would entail ‘very large jumps’ in GN
source revenue and NTI royalty payments. AREVA emphasized that although the quantitative results
of the modelling would need to “be considered with some caution,” it is confident in its overall
conclusions that the Project would result in significant positive residual economic effects.492 When
taken in consideration with the other existing mining projects in the territory, and the potential for
future mining development in the foreseeable future, AREVA predicted with high confidence that the
potential cumulative effects of the Project to the contribution of GN and NTI revenues would be both
positive and significant and would continue for a long duration.
5.5.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) recommended that AREVA collaborate with local community representatives to
repurpose surplus buildings upon closure to benefit local communities, including the on-site health
care facility, kitchen and accommodation facilities. In its response to final written submissions, AREVA
noted the potential for future agreements to be made regarding the use and re-purpose of project
infrastructure such as buildings, the accommodations camp, airstrip, docking facilities and/or the
proposed all-season access road alternative (if built).
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) raised questions regarding the
results of AREVA’s Initial Feasibility Study, undertaken in 2011, and the applicability of the predicted
project taxes and royalties to accrue by parties in the event that there is significant lag time between
the production of the FEIS and commencement of the Project. The GN Department of Finance noted
that real tax revenues may not match the projected values given in the FEIS if the project start date is
pushed further into the future. The GN provided several recommendations to the Proponent related
to tax revenues, preparation of tax data, and updating and refining the feasibility study. AREVA
responded by noting its willingness to cooperate and communicate with all GN departments and to
develop mechanisms, such as data sharing agreements, to facilitate and maintain an open dialogue.
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the GN appeared satisfied with this response.493
During the Final Hearing, multiple parties including NTI, the GN, the Hamlet of Baker Lake,
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), community members, including the Jonah Amit’naaq
Secondary School Grade 11 social studies class, and NIRB staff raised concerns and/or questions
regarding projected taxes and royalties to accrue to the NTI, KIA, GN and the federal government. NTI
and the GN noted that the projected taxes and royalties are speculative and can often create high and
even inaccurate expectations and questioned AREVA on the formula it used to derive its estimated tax
and royalty payments that would accrue to the NTI, KIA and the GN.494 The GN commented that
492
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 13-15.
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 765,
lines 6-20.
494
H. Uniuqsaraq, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015,
p. 474, lines 1-5.
493
176
AREVA indicated that the GN would accrue $267 million in corporate taxes over the life of the project
and approximately $90 million annually. The GN noted that corporate tax amounts are dependent on
a multitude of fluctuating factors, and that as of the Final Hearing the GN had received ‘little taxes’
from the Nunavut mining sector.495 During its response to NTI and the GN, AREVA expanded upon the
information provided in the FEIS and explained that it had used the Canadian Mining Regulations to
calculate potential royalties, and current Nunavut and federal corporate tax rates to calculate
potential tax benefits accruing to the GN and the federal government. AREVA added that all
calculations were made using a market price of $74 per pound and an annual production level of 3,200
tonnes.496
In response to questions posed by Makita regarding the distribution of potential royalties accrued by
NTI, NTI explained that half of the royalties accrued would be placed into a trust with the interest to
be used once it reaches a set monetary amount, with the other half being placed in an operating fund
to be used by NTI and the three Regional Inuit Organizations.497 The KIA used its agreement regarding
the Meadowbank Gold Mine to clarify that the royalties the KIA receives would be divided by the
seven communities in the region and set aside for particular initiatives.498 In response to questions
and comments raised by the Hamlet of Baker Lake regarding the need for individual communities to
benefit, the KIA noted that during its IIBA negotiations with AREVA it would like to see more funding
being directed to individual communities than allocated in past IIBAs, along with the development of
additional community programs. The KIA added that funding was being allocated to establish a
project specific post closure plan.499 In response to earlier questions from the KIA, AREVA noted that
specific community investment, such as initiatives to improve community infrastructure, would be
determined through the continuation of the IIBA negotiations.500
The GN also provided clarification to AREVA’s statements in the FEIS that any taxes accrued to the GN
from the Project could be used to directly offset needs for specific infrastructure and social
programming. The GN explained that tax revenues are deposited into a general revenue account and
are used for public programs and services throughout Nunavut and cannot be used to directly offset
specific program costs related to changes in social conditions resulting from a specific project, for
example, in Baker Lake.501
During the Final Hearing, a community member from Arviat commented on the potential tax and
royalty benefits to accrue to the territory and region, specifically regarding the potential monetary
495
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 492,
lines 11-19.
496
D. Huffman, AREVA, Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, pp. 939-940, lines 23-26 and
1-5.
497
B. Dean, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 714,
lines 1-19.
498
D. Ningeongan, Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p. 1724,
lines 1-10.
499
D. Ningeongan, Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p. 1726,
lines 2-17.
500
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 491, lines 19-25.
501
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 492493, lines 20-26 and 1-3.
177
value of projected tax revenues and the parties responsible for allocation of funds. The community
member further outlined the confusion between the information presented by AREVA and the GN
during the Final Hearing. In response, AREVA responded that the primary Project benefits would be
the predicted increase in job and business opportunities in the Kivalliq region and not only tax and/or
royalty benefits.502 The President of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada commented on the
differential experience of women in the community and on a mine site, including lack of daycare
facilities to facilitate rotational work and harassment while on a mine site, and recommended that
royalties accrued to the KIA be allocated to women focused programming. AREVA responded that its
approach is to be inclusive and to incorporate women into its workforce. AREVA further noted that
women working at mine sites, particularly regarding shift work, need a strong support network and
acknowledge that women often face differential experiences than men with regards to shift work.503
AREVA further discussed the need for on-site training regarding workers’ rights for women and the
need to facilitate an environment where women can feel safe to report incidents that may arise.504
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff asked AREVA to clarify its confidence levels that the Project
would have a lasting positive effect on Nunavut and the Kivalliq region, particularly taking into account
the acknowledged limitations of its modelling used as well as the speculative nature of the project tax
and royalty payments. AREVA responded that the Project would result in lasting benefits to the region
regardless of the taxes and royalties.505
Within its final written submission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
indicated that it had outstanding concerns regarding the lack of detail provided in the FEIS regarding
proposed mitigation measures for predicted socio-economic impacts, including those on traditional
culture, employment, business opportunities, health, wellbeing, training and education. AANDC
requested that AREVA provide details within the FEIS on how socio-economic effects mitigation and
potential/resulting benefit enhancements would be applied to socio-economic effects as applicable
rather than just stating that these would be addressed within the IIBA to be negotiated with the KIA.
In its response to final written submissions, AREVA noted that the IIBA negotiations had not advanced
enough to release any detailed information; however, it concluded that its FEIS had contained
sufficient detail on the proposed mitigation of potential socio-economic effects to satisfy the NIRB
review process. Furthermore, AREVA noted that benefit enhancement would be best addressed
adaptively through future implementation of an IIBA.
The Hamlet of Baker Lake noted that through past experiences with mining in the Kivalliq region,
Baker Lake, as the most affected community, has seen little assistance to alleviate resulting effects,
particularly with regards to infrastructure and social problems.506 During its technical presentation,
the Hamlet discussed the IIBA process and questioned the KIA on whether the municipality could be
involved in future negotiations of the IIBA. The Hamlet of Baker Lake noted that although it had met
502
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1431, lines 6-18.
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1664-1665, lines 8-26
and 1-18.
504
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1666, lines 1-7.
505
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 526, lines 5-14.
506
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 503,
lines 16-22.
503
178
with the KIA in regards to the potential IIBA, “the Hamlet council does not believe the [IIBA] is
sufficient as a vehicle to fully address all social, economic, and infrastructure impacts on Baker Lake
and its residents.”507 The Hamlet of Baker Lake further noted its position that the IIBA process does
not allow for formal involvement by the community to address Project induced impacts and concluded
that “AREVA must address these commitments under the Final Environmental Impact Statement and
[address] Hamlet socio-economic and infrastructure concerns directly with the community and in
collaboration with [KIA] and other agencies.”508 The Hamlet of Baker Lake used its experience with the
Meadowbank Gold Mine project to note that due to the organizational structure of the IIBA process,
the municipality saw few benefits agreed upon by parties at the community level.509 In response to
earlier questions posed by the Hamlet of Baker Lake in regards to potential future meetings with the
KIA regarding the IIBA process, the KIA noted the intention for future meetings but did not elaborate
on any details or expected itinerary.510 Through a deferred response, the KIA explained that although
topics such as infrastructure cannot be addressed within an IIBA pursuant to Article 26 of the NLCA, it
encouraged the Hamlet to participate in the regional Socio-economic Monitoring Committee.511
5.5.3 Views of the Board
The Board acknowledges that multiple parties raised concerns that the projected tax and royalties to
accrue to the federal government, NTI, KIA and the GN, could create unrealistic expectations. The
Board agrees with these concerns. During the Final Hearing, NTI noted that “there [were] some
presentations made with potential royalties and taxes to be derived from major projects, and they’re
often way off mark. It creates high expectations …”.512 Furthermore, parties have noted that mining
related taxes and royalties have contributed little over the years. During the Final Hearing NTI noted
that:
The reason why I asked AREVA how they determined their formula for potential taxes and
revenues is because … it creates high expectations. Right now NTI’s resource royalty revenue
fund is only at 4 million. Ten years ago it was expected to have reached in the hundreds of
millions so … it’s a contrast between what was projected to what reality is.513
During the Final Hearing the GN stated that:
507
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1231, lines 1-24.
508
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1231, lines 16-24.
509
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, pp.
1231-1232, lines 25-26 and 1-25.
510
L. Manzo, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 704,
lines 10-16.
511
D. Ningeongan, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p.
1700, lines 3-13.
512
H. Uniuqsaraq, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5,
2015, p. 474, lines 1-5.
513
H. Uniuqsaraq, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6,
2015, pp. 715-716, lines 21-26 and 1-3.
179
The Proponent, in their presentation, indicated that the Government of Nunavut would see
$267 million in corporate taxes over the life of the mine, or about $19 million per year. We just
point out that the estimate is highly speculative and should be treated as such. Corporate
taxes depend on a number of fluctuating factors, and … to date, the Government of Nunavut
has received very little taxes from the mining sector.514
AREVA noted its confidence that the Project would result in lasting benefits to the region regardless of
taxes and royalties and acknowledges that in the FEIS, AREVA predicted that the “real economic boost
to communities” would derive from Kivalliq employees reinvesting their wages into the region and
from local businesses hiring Kivalliq residents to meet the demand of the large mining companies. 515
While the Board acknowledges that AREVA is confident that the Project would result in socioeconomic benefits to the Kivalliq region, the Board finds it unclear whether the level of projected
benefits, taxes and royalties could be achieved.
5.5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit benefits, royalties and taxation having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal.
5.6
Population Demographics
5.6.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential direct and indirect Project effects on population demographics within
Volume 1, Section 8.6 and Volume 9, Section 8 of the FEIS and provided socio-economic baseline data
in Volume 9, Appendix 9A: Socio-Economic Baseline. AREVA concluded that the Project should have a
limited residual effect on population demographics during the construction and operation phases, no
residual effects upon project completion, and limited cumulative effect with other large mining
projects currently active in Nunavut.
Using data available from the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics, AREVA noted that the rapid population
growth in the Kivalliq region is directly attributable to high observed birth rates, an overall stable
death rate over the last 15 years, and negative overall net migration. AREVA used population
projections from the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics to show that growth rates are expected to slow over
the lifespan of the Project, and noted that it is unlikely that changes to population growth over the
lifespan of the Project could be attributed solely to the Project. AREVA instead identified that the
primary potential link between demographic shifts, primarily population growth, and the Project is
through in-migration, in particular:
 Out-of-area workers relocating to within the Kivalliq region during construction and
operations phases;
514
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 492,
lines 11-19.
515
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 8-14.
180
 Family members of current Kivalliq residents returning to the Kivalliq region in response to
perceived economic opportunities;
 Economic migrants from elsewhere in Nunavut or Canada relocating to the Kivalliq in
response to perceived economic opportunities; and
 Migrants from within the Kivalliq (primarily from smaller hamlets) relocating to the hub
communities of Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake.
AREVA noted the limitation in foreseeing migratory flows with any accuracy. AREVA predicted that
due to the temporary and rotational-based nature of future jobs at the mine site and the proposed
provision of transportation between the home communities of workers and work sites, the potential
number of out-of-area workers relocating to the Kivalliq region during the construction and operation
phases would be small. However, AREVA expects more in-migration during the operations phase than
throughout the construction phase as a result of family members of Kivalliq residents returning with
the expectation of new and assured employment opportunities, directly or indirectly created by
Project induced employment. While AREVA noted that there is potential for in-migration of
individuals without a secure offer of employment from other parts of Nunavut or Canada as a whole, it
predicted that constraints on the availability of housing would restrict most in-migrants to those with
existing support networks in the immediate vicinity of the Project and/or the assurance of
employment.
AREVA indicated that local businesses have begun to source labour from outside of the region as the
current project development in the Kivalliq region, specifically the Meadowbank Gold Mine, has
resulted in local business growth. AREVA further noted that this specific in-migration is expected to be
constrained to the communities of Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet and that there is little evidence in the
existing population numbers in the Kivalliq region to suggest significant in-migration. Based on a
review of current literature and experiences in other northern isolated communities, AREVA suggested
that there is also the potential for out-migration of individuals, particularly younger residents, from
outlying Kivalliq or Nunavut communities to alternative points of hire. AREVA noted that Agnico Eagle
Mines Limited reported that it had observed in-migration to Rankin Inlet from some of the smaller
Kivalliq communities between 2011 and 2013 as well out-migration: eight workers from the Kivalliq
region employed at the Meadowbank Gold Mine relocated to southern Canada, which represented
3.5% of the mines’ Inuit workforce, which AREVA noted was not insignificant. AREVA commented that
it was difficult to attribute in-migration to Rankin Inlet to mining activity, due to the increase in the
construction industry in the community. AREVA further observed that population growth rates appear
to be unrelated to the Meadowbank Gold Mine operation and noted that, on average, population
growth rates in Baker Lake were slower during the operations phase of the mine. AREVA concluded
that overall there is little evidence of significant in-migration to Baker Lake or Rankin Inlet in response
to the Meadowbank Gold Mine. AREVA noted that as non-Inuit in-migration and births had increased
from 2012, this is “driving the shift to positive net migration and that Inuit migration is still netting out
as negative.”516 Consequently, it noted that small absolute population changes – in particular
movement of workers from small outlying communities to regional hubs – can read as large
population growth rates/changes due to extremely small population numbers observed in Nunavut.
AREVA concluded that current in-migration to the Kivalliq region resulting from expected economic
516
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 8-25.
181
activity, irrespective of the Kiggavik Project initially and likely related to the Meliadine Gold Mine,
would continue for some time and is unlikely to exceed 30 to 50 people. AREVA noted that migration
into Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet would provide further stimulus to economic growth and could
potentially alleviate labour shortages and related pressure on wages.
Within its effects analysis, AREVA reiterated the complex nature of migration and presented its
predictions in Table 8.1-10 that with low to medium confidence the Project would result in both
positive and negative long-term effects on population demographics as it relates to migration. In
addition, AREVA noted that these would have a negligible to medium effect and only in-migration to
the Kivalliq region (either from direct or indirect employment) would have a significant effect.
Furthermore, AREVA predicted the overall residual effect from migration into Baker Lake and Rankin
Inlet is expected to be positive and that it further expects individuals and their families to benefit from
migration if they move with secure offers of employment.
For purposes of predicting the potential cumulative effects involving the Project on population, AREVA
constructed a territorial level scenario from publically available data as of 2014 that considered the
construction and operation of nine (9) large mining projects in Nunavut from present until 2030
(Meadowbank Gold Mine, Phase 2 Hope Bay Belt Gold Mine, Kiggavik Uranium Mine, Meliadine Gold
Mine, Mary River Iron Mine, Hackett River, Izok Corridor Based Metal Mines Project, and Back River
Gold Mine Project). AREVA predicted that although not all of the projects identified above are located
within the Kivalliq region, there would be ‘spillover effects’ into the region for a multitude of factors,
including high demand for labour and goods. AREVA predicted that potential cumulative effects
would be additive. AREVA discussed the difficulties that the Mary River Iron Mine has in meeting its
demand for Inuit labor and the potential for Kivalliq workers to meet that demand. However, AREVA
cautioned that the Kivalliq supply of labour may need meet the demand if it has not developed at the
same rate as the demand. AREVA stated that if this occurred the resulting potential cumulative effects
would be less than expected and less than additive. AREVA concluded that the Project could result in
significant positive cumulative effects on in migration within the Kivalliq region as well as significant
negative cumulative effects on out migration within the Kivalliq region of workers. AREVA noted that
although it should not be responsible to mitigate or monitor such cumulative effects it would
contribute to information sharing to contribute to the Government of Nunavut’s management of the
mining sector.
5.6.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
The Government of Nunavut (GN) noted within its final written submission that it agreed with AREVA’s
prediction that the Project would likely have a significant negative impact to the demand for social
housing as a result of in-migration, which would lead to higher rates of overcrowding and detrimental
effects to health and wellbeing. The GN accepted AREVA’s summary of the current housing situation
in the Kivalliq region, which reflected Nunavut, and provided additional facts to provide context of the
‘housing crisis.’ The GN noted that to identify any additional demand for social housing the migration
trends to the Kivalliq region need to be understood. Therefore, the GN proposed that AREVA establish
a monitoring and reporting mechanism, specifically offering a confidential annual survey to its
Nunavummiut employees, to identify migration trends and Project effects, and collaborate with the
Nunavut Housing Corporation and other agencies and interested groups to identify measures for
managing and mitigating adverse impacts on employee well-being and communities in the Kivalliq
region.
182
In response to final written submissions, AREVA noted that it had incorporated data in regards to
migration that became available throughout its assessment of the Project into its FEIS. AREVA noted
that based on this data there was no evidence of community level population growth from 2006 to
2013 associated with the construction phase of the Meadowbank Gold Mine project in either Baker
Lake or Rankin Inlet. AREVA further noted that although the population of both Baker Lake and Rankin
Inlet spiked in 2013, it concluded that it would be difficult to attribute this growth to mining related
projects. AREVA agreed to participate as a party in identifying data trends in migration in the Kivalliq
region and to collaborate with the GN, Nunavut Housing Corporation and other members of the SocioEconomic Monitoring Committee to design and/or implement a housing survey of employees. During
the Final Hearing, the GN appeared satisfied with AREVA’s commitment to develop and deliver a
voluntary survey to its Nunavut employees regarding their housing situation.517
Within its final written submission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
noted that its concerns and requests regarding a perceived lack of detail on the potential impact of
temporary and/or early Project closure on populations and demographics in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement remained outstanding for the FEIS. AANDC recommended that AREVA provide
more detail on mitigation measures in the event that premature or temporary closure is needed.
Within its response to final written submissions, AREVA provided a similar response to that detailed in
Section 5.2: Employment. AREVA noted that specific mitigation required in the event of a premature
or temporary closure would be dependent on the specific economic context at the time of such a
closure.
AANDC further commented on AREVA’s prediction within its FEIS that the Project could result in a
potential negative effect on the retention of skilled Inuit employees in Baker Lake and within the
Kivalliq region. AANDC noted that skilled workers could potentially migrate to southern communities,
which would have a negative effect on Kivalliq communities, and recommended that AREVA develop
mitigation measures to address out-migration effects on community and regional economies. In
response to final written submissions, AREVA clarified that within its FEIS the net migration it referred
to was of employees of the Meadowbank Gold Mine and not “out migration by people who have
benefitted from Agnico Eagle and/or GN training programs who have chosen to leave work in Nunavut
to take their skills elsewhere” and concluded that this resulted in a benefit rather than a negative
effect.
5.6.3 Views of the Board
The Board appreciates AREVA’s acknowledgement that that the Project would likely have a significant
negative impact to the demand for social housing and would result in potentially detrimental effects
to health and wellbeing for community members in the Kivalliq region. The Board supports the
Proponent’s commitment to collaborate as a member of the Kivalliq Socio-Economic Monitoring
Committee to identify data trends in migration.
With the lack of a clear Project start date, the Board is not confident that the current migration trends
would remain relevant in the event of a significant lag time between the current Review and Project
517
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 766,
lines 9-23.
183
commencement. This made it difficult for the Board to determine with confidence the potential
Project impact on the wellbeing of residents within the Kivalliq communities, particularly Baker Lake
and Rankin Inlet.
5.6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit education and training issues having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal.
5.7
Traditional Activity and Knowledge
5.7.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential direct and indirect Project effects on traditional activity and knowledge
within Volume 1, Section 8.6 and Volume 9 of the FEIS and further discussed its processes and results
regarding public participation and the incorporation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into its assessment in
Volume 3 of the FEIS. AREVA concluded that it expected overall Project effects on traditional culture
to be negative and substantial. However, AREVA noted that participation in the wage-based economy
would positively impact traditional culture as it predicted that the income and time resulting from
rotational work would provide the resources and the opportunity for harvesting. However, the
Proponent also recognized that spending extended periods of time in a cross-cultural setting may
result in a shift away from traditional harvesting practices, the use of Inuktitut, and other cultural
activities.
To assess the potential effects of the Project on traditional culture, AREVA conducted community
consultations with the potentially affected communities to increase community understanding of the
Project, to provide a mechanism for members to express concerns, and to gather information and to
understand the role of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. As part of the assessment, AREVA identified the
following five areas of consideration:

Harvesting (primarily of caribou, marine mammals and fish)

Associated food security

Language

Values and knowledge

Sites of heritage value
To evaluate these areas of concern, AREVA conducted a qualitative analysis and utilized traditional
knowledge collected from Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and engagement activities, as well as information
collected from academic studies and literature reviews. It noted that “in many cases, [Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit] and western scientific information was in agreement, validating and strengthening
the assessment and confidence in assessment determinations.”518
AREVA concluded that
518
FEIS, Volume 3, p. 3-27.
184
“discrepancies or variations within and between Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and western scientific data
exists” and in instances where these differences occurred, AREVA indicated that it undertook amore
“precautionary approach,” for example by looking into potential interactions indication by Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and not western science.518
Harvesting
Within the FEIS, AREVA concluded that “the project is not expected to negatively affect harvesting
resources. The environmental assessments on terrestrial, marine and aquatic animals and vegetation
indicated no significant environmental effects on qualities or quantities of harvested biological
resources.”519 However, AREVA acknowledged that there was some uncertainty regarding potential
effects on the distribution of land animals, marine mammals and fish. Through consultations with
community members, including Elders and hunters, concerns were expressed about the potential
impact of increased Project related traffic and noise on land and marine animals.
AREVA concluded, based on documentation available, including interviews, that there was little past
use and harvesting in the Project area west of the Thelon River. AREVA further noted that the Thelon
River was used as an access point to hunting areas and that there were identified caribou crossings
northwest of Baker Lake, which could potentially be affected by the proposed all-season access road
option. Further, hunting near Chesterfield Inlet primarily occurred along coastal areas with the
Chesterfield Inlet providing important habitat for seals and whales. In response to concern raised by
community members on marine wildlife, the Proponent predicted that while it did not expect
significant effects to marine mammals, the increase in ship and barge activities could affect the local
habitat and change marine animal behaviors and/or result in ‘energetic stress.
AREVA noted that information gathered from consultations suggested that with regard to “land
mammals, migratory patterns are in any case changeable and unpredictable.”Error! Bookmark not defined.
AREVA expressed this variability when it noted that “hunters in Baker Lake [observed] that
Meadowbank has changed caribou distribution and made access more difficult”Error! Bookmark not defined.
and also that “hunters … do not go as far as they used to go but most often hunt close to their
communities”.520 However, the Proponent concluded that overall, “Project effects on all [caribou]
herds are assessed as not significant and not resulting in changes to caribou abundance or distribution
that can future result in changes to harvest.”521
AREVA concluded that a potential positive residual effect of the Project on harvesting would be
greater access to resources in the western Kivalliq region as a result of the proposed all-season access
road option, unless access would result in unsustainable harvesting of caribou. Using data from
Statistics Canada on harvesting pressure in the Kivalliq region and an internal ‘investigation’ into
harvesting pressures in Baker Lake between 2000 and 2010, AREVA further concluded that the
Meadowbank Gold Mine road did not appear to be a contributing factor to increased harvesting and
that more time and income likely reduced constraints to hunting. AREVA noted that it expected the
Project to have minimal interaction and no significant effects on the Beverly, Lorillard, Wager Bay,
519
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 9-2.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 9-12.
521
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 9-13.
520
185
Ahiak and Qamanirjuaq herds (although it noted some greater potential for interaction with the latter
two herds).
AREVA further observed that the wildlife boards and Hunters and Trappers Organizations are
responsible for ensuring the sustainability and harvesting levels related to the regional and community
level harvesting practices and techniques. AREVA committed to compliance and cooperative
measures in coordination with the responsible organizations to manage and monitor the proposed allseason access road option.
Food Security
Within the FEIS, AREVA defined food security as the “adequate safe, nutritious, culturally acceptable
food, accessible to all in a dignified and affordable manner.”522 AREVA noted the cultural importance
of the practice of harvesting food, which is integral to Inuit identity and culture, and also the
nutritional value it provides. Socio-economic baseline figures suggest that “two thirds of households,
and half of children in Nunavut, were found to be food insecure at some time in 2007/2008 in
Nunavut.”523 Consequently, AREVA noted that a reduction in harvesting country food would likely
have impacts on food security. The Proponent predicted that although it does not expect harvesting
levels to decrease, there is a correlation between food insecurity and traditional harvesting which
would need to be monitored.
Language
In the FEIS, AREVA noted the importance of preserving Inuit culture and language for the purpose of
Inuit identity and communication between generations. Although it predicted that a shift from
traditional lifestyles to a wage based economy would result in increased use of English, AREVA noted
that it would facilitate the on-site use of Inuktitut as practicable, but that proficiency in English would
be required pursuant to health and safety requirements. AREVA recommended that the government
and individuals should increase measures to strengthen bilingualism and retain the Inuktitut language
in the home and at school.
Values and Knowledge
AREVA noted community concerns that the shift into the wage based economy would result in the loss
of traditional culture and a change of the role of Elders. AREVA noted that changing values and
knowledge is lined with changing patterns of subsistence and further noted that cultural change has
been occurring for decades, irrespective of the Project. AREVA noted Inuit have expressed interest in
being included in the wage based economy, and with the widening of economic opportunities, positive
chances can occur. AREVA concluded that the Project itself would not reduce traditional values and
knowledge, and that support from both the Project and government can assist in individuals making
the choice to maintain their culture in a way that is appropriate to their needs.
Cultural Heritage Sites
In the FEIS, AREVA concluded that, with the exception of the proposed all-season access route option,
the Project would potentially affect only a few sites (no grave sites), and that “fewer still were
522
523
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 9-15.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 9-16.
186
considered by Inuit to be culturally important”.524 The Proponent recognized the cultural importance
of the Thelon River Basin to the people of the Kivalliq region, Dene and Metis groups in the Northwest
Territories. AREVA’s impact assessment on cultural and heritage sites is available in more detail in
Section 5.9: Cultural, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources.
5.7.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) commented that although the methodology outlined for including Traditional
Knowledge and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit had been improved upon compared to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, the methodology as outlined was not incorporated throughout the
analysis of effects, mitigation and monitoring plans. In addition, it was not clear to NTI/KIA how the
methodology identified and reported variations in community perspectives or inconsistencies in the
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit or traditional knowledge. Paula Kigjugalik Hughson (Ms. Hughson) also
questioned the Proponent’s methodology within her final written submission, particularly how data
was collected and used within the effects assessment. In its response to the final written submission
provided by NTI/KIA, AREVA reiterated that it is committed to the continued use of Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and its principles throughout the life of the Project and incorporation into
management strategies, mitigation, monitoring plans and operational considerations. AREVA
expounded on the many ways that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit had been incorporated throughout the
FEIS and how it would continue to collect and apply local knowledge.
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) argued that the potential impacts to hunter harvest and caribou distribution
resulting from the proposed winter and/or all-season access roads were unclear. NTI/KIA noted that
AREVA’s assumption “that the winter access road option [would] provide little improvement to winter
harvest access is untested and unsupported” and that the effectiveness of its proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures in response to dust generation is unclear. 525 NTI/KIA recommended that the
Proponent assess potential impacts of fluctuating harvest levels on the Ahiak herd and acknowledge
that the proposed winter road option could result in potential effects to herd distribution and harvest
levels in the Kivalliq region. In its response to written submissions, AREVA noted its position that the
information presented in the FEIS is sufficient to inform the NIRB decision and reiterated the
applicable monitoring plans, including the Public Access and Monitoring Management Plan and Hunter
Harvest Study.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA further noted that the two primary potential Project impacts on the
traditional economy regarding hunting would be increased difficulty for Inuit to harvest caribou as
migration patterns change, and for marine hunting to be impacted by barge traffic and asked how
AREVA proposed to address potentially adverse effects on the traditional economy.526 AREVA
responded that its socio-economic assessment was contingent on the results of its biophysical
524
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 9-22.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, p. 21.
526
B. Parlee, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 486487, lines 19-26 and 1-4.
525
187
assessment, and as it concluded the Project would not result in significant effects to wildlife, AREVA
consequently concluded that the “land-based economy as a whole [would] not be compromised”.527
The KIA responded that AREVA’s conclusions appear to differ from those expressed via Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and Traditional Knowledge.528
In its technical presentation during the Final Hearing, the KIA noted outstanding concerns that
harvesting would be negatively impacted as a result of Project effects on caribou movements,
specifically the potential all-season access road option, and that proposed marine traffic would impact
marine harvest.529,530 In response to the KIA’s recommendations that AREVA collaborate with both
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Government of Nunavut (GN) to carry out Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit related studies, the two parties clarified that the Proponent would be responsible
for carrying out any Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit related studies and that they would expect to be
consulted, rather than act as a responsible party.531,532
During the Final Hearing, multiple parties discussed the potential basin-opening effect of the Project.
The Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) commented on the projected
basin opening effect of the Project, if approved and constructed, and discussed concerns regarding
caribou herds and traditional land use.533 Within its final written submission, Nunavummiut
Makitagunarningit (Makita) identified the potential ‘basin opening’ nature of the Project as a core
concern. Makita commented on the potential for companies to utilize AREVA’s road and milling
infrastructure and that “this would make ore bodies that would have otherwise been marginal into
economically viable projects”.534 Makita further noted that it “believes that the Kiggavik proposal and
its basin opening potential poses a serious threat to the long-term viability of the Kivalliq region’s
caribou herds and the land based culture of Baker Lake Inuit”.Error! Bookmark not defined. In its response to
written submissions, AREVA noted that it assessed a Far Future Scenario within its FEIS wherein it
incorporated potential cumulative effects of future projects. AREVA further discussed the
requirement of future projects to undergo the NIRB environmental assessment process. During the
Final Hearing, Makita noted that
the current planning and policy framework is insufficient to protect critical wildlife habitat and
important Inuit cultural areas from the induced development that would result from the
approval of the Kiggavik [Project] proposal… Makita believes that the Kiggavik Proposal and its
527
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 487, lines 5-17.
B. Parlee, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, p. 487, lines 1822.
529
J. Tulugak, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 652,
lines 10-20.
530
J. Hart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 653-654,
lines 11-26 and 1.
531
J. Dahl, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 690,
lines 8-19.
532
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 740741, lines 24-26 and 1-9.
533
J. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1246, lines 17-26.
534
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 7-8.
528
188
basin-opening nature poses a serious threat to the long-term viability of the Kivalliq region’s
caribou herds and potentially their harvesting by Baker Lake.535
The Baker Lake HTO and Makita’s concerns with regards to potential cumulative effects resulting from
a ‘basin opening’ result are further discussed in Section 6.4: Cumulative Effects.
Within their final written submission and during the Final Hearing, the GN shared similar concerns as
NTI/KIA in that the proposed all-season access road would potentially result in increased harvesting
pressure and made recommendations regarding AREVA’s proposed mitigation and monitoring plans,
specifically through a Hunter Harvest Study. The GN further noted that AREVA should re-evaluate the
current structure of its Hunter Harvest Study through collaboration with stakeholders to ensure it
would meet the Proponent’s monitoring objectives and maintained that it is the Proponent’s
responsibility to monitor all potential impacts. During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing,
the GN indicated that to ensure the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO)
plays a central role in operating the Study, the Proponent would need to ensure the Baker Lake HTO
had adequate resources to undertake such a role. The GN added that the Study should monitor
harvest across the hunting range of Baker Lake residents, rather than only along the proposed access
roads, to determine if the access roads were resulting in increased harvest levels and/or redistribution
of harvest activities. The GN considered this issue unresolved and recommended that it be resolved
prior to the permitting process, if approved.536
The GN further noted during the Final Hearing that to increase its overall confidence in AREVA’s ability
to adequately mitigate potential increases in harvesting pressure as a result of either proposed access
road options, AREVA would need to establish a rigorous monitoring program of harvesting activity,
and employ effective road management measures along with defined commitments to regional
caribou monitoring, if approved.537 The GN recommended that AREVA develop a road access
management agreement detailing conditions of project access as well as a road access management
plan detailing mitigation measures. AREVA clarified that while it agrees that it is responsible to
measure project effects, it is cognisant that other parties may be better suited to lead and monitor
hunter harvest studies.538
In response to a question raised by the Hamlet of Baker Lake regarding the potential overlap of
proposed Project activities, AREVA confirmed that through consultations, community members have
indicated that they currently fish at Judge Sissons Lake and at numerous lakes near the proposed mine
site.539 In response to clarification questions raised by the NIRB Board and Ms. Hughson, AREVA
535
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, pp. 1164-1165, lines 22-26 and 1-6.
536
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 772773, lines 7-26 and 1-23.
537
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 774776, lines 22-26, 1-26, and 1-10.
538
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 818-819, lines 13-26
and 1-10.
539
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 323, lines 1-3.
189
confirmed that it considered local fishing spots, cabins, and the possible use of the Meadowbank dock
site when considering potential dock site placement.540,541
Within its final written submission, the Baker Lake HTO noted similar concerns as the KIA concerning
the potential Project impact on harvesting and shared additional concerns that mining activity has not
been banned in caribou calving and post calving grounds, or in areas of high cultural value. The Baker
Lake HTO explained that the hunters it represents rely on the traditional hunting seasons and grounds,
including caribou crossings, calving grounds and wintering ranges, and have reported adverse impacts
resulting from current mining related activities in the hunting grounds, including low-flying aircraft.
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake HTO disagreed with AREVA’s prediction that “habitat loss will
be small” and noted that potential habitat loss would destroy their hunting grounds.542 The Baker
Lake HTO made recommendations regarding the protection of calving and post-calving areas as well as
of cultural importance, which include but are not limited to ancestral lands, sacred places, heritage
sites, and burial grounds (ancient and recent). In its response to final written submissions, AREVA
noted that many of the Baker Lake HTO’s requests were regulatory in nature and under the authority
of a responsible agency, including the NTI, KIA, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
(AANDC), GN and the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC). AREVA added that it had submitted a
draft road management plan as part of its response and offered to meet with the Baker Lake HTO.
During the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake HTO noted experience with the all-weather road associated
with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project, the impacts from the road on caribou, difficulty in
harvesting and the potential that all fur-bearing animals would migrate away from the area due to the
Project.
Sometimes you have to travel all the way up to Whitehills Lake […] before you finally start
seeing anything again. Why? The first two years of the road -- first few years, caribou stayed
around. You had no problem. It was good. But after the caribou figured -- finally figured out
that there's going to be constant traffic or whatever, I guess they started avoiding that area,
the road. I believe the same sort of thing is going to happen, even on a winter road. According
to AREVA's estimation or whatever, that number of traffic, […] public access to that road, it's
going to be nonstop. That won't give the caribou much time to try and get across or move on
this way onto the north side of the road, and that will definitely push the caribou that might
have been going up here further down that way, and we'll just have to travel that much further
and be out that much longer to do our hunting. That's going to have a significant impact on
the hunters of Baker Lake. […]. I know that although this is the technical review, our culture is
going to be changing very rapidly, and I want you to be aware, it's going to be changing very
rapidly, and we are -- and not only some of us, but the majority of us, are opposing, because
we're going to be all impacted, especially for hunting purposes, and whether you're trapping or
540
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 340, lines 21-26.
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 421-422, lines 2526 and 1-5.
542
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 225, lines 23-26.
541
190
hunting wolves, all the fur -- all the fur-bearing animals that we rely on, because they are going
to be moving on further.543
The Baker Lake HTO added that the proposed winter access road option would potentially interfere
with Inuit fishing and harvesting activities in Baker Lake and the associated lakes, rivers and streams 544
and further noted that fish stocks have decreased within the past 10 years along the shipping route
and within Baker Lake.
I noticed a big change from a decade ago where we’d go – where we would go for a weekend
trip, and right at the mouth of that south channel is where we usually camp, and we’d come
home with an action pack full of fish. Last year we were – we were lucky to get five.545
In its technical presentation during the Final Hearing, the Baker Lake HTO recommended that if the
Project were to proceed, the Baker Lake HTO should receive funding to conduct independent and
annual Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit studies, hold workshops with local hunters, and submit an
independent monitoring report.546 The Baker Lake HTO highlighted the issue of food security and
noted that it would prefer buying supplies for hunting instead of buying from the store.547
Through final written submissions and during the Final Hearing, multiple parties, including the KIA,
Baker Lake HTO, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), Lutsel Ke Dene First
Nation (LKDNF), and Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), concluded that AREVA’s use of ‘herd
viability’ to determine the potential significance of a predicted Project impact to caribou exemplified
an over-reliance on scientific knowledge and did not, as the BQCMB stated, “adequately reflect the
perspectives, knowledge or needs of caribou harvesters and caribou-using communities”.548 The
BQCMB noted that by establishing viability as the criteria to determine significance, AREVA’s
assessment of potential effects does not reflect potential impacts to harvesters and land users who it
argues would be significantly affected by factors negatively influencing sustainable harvest levels and
accessibility:
The BQCMB and caribou-using communities disagree with these FEIS conclusions because they
are based on an approach that assesses significance of effects based entirely on anticipated
influence on the long-term viability of a herd or its recovery using scientific knowledge about
the herds, including knowledge about natural variability. The BQCMB considers this unrealistic
and inadequate given the lack of scientific knowledge about the caribou herds using the
543
T. Tunguag, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 9, 2015, pp. 1258 to 1289, lines 10-26 and 1-25.
544
W. Bernauer, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
February 9, 2015, p. 1281, lines 12-15.
545
R. Aksawnee, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 1123, lines 18-25.
546
R. Aksawnee, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 9, 2015, p. 1237, lines 12-22.
547
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1260, lines 10-15.
548
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 13-14.
191
Kiggavik Project area. The high level of uncertainty results in low confidence in prediction of
non-significance.
Effects that negatively influence sustainable harvest levels and accessibility of caribou are
sufficient to be “significant effects” for harvesters. These effects are different and likely less
extreme than effects required to reduce population viability or recovery. For example, a herd
might change its movement patterns to avoid disturbance, physical barriers or changes in the
landscape caused by a mine, while the herd is healthy with no imminent danger of a major
decline or loss. Alternatively, a herd that is still viable may experience a decline sufficient to
result in reduction in area used as annual range. In both cases if caribou are no longer close
enough to communities to be available to harvesters, then the effects are significant for them,
especially subsistence harvesters, and for their communities.548
During the Final Hearing, the KIA, Baker Lake HTO and the BQCMB further questioned AREVA on how
it had incorporated Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and the values and priorities of Nunavummiut and
Kivallimiut into its effects assessment and determination of significance for water quality and quantity,
marine mammals, and caribou. The KIA noted that:
the thresholds for significance determination indicated that, quote, "significance is based on
whether the effect influences the long-term viability of a population". However, societal values
should play an important role in determining significance of environmental effects, for
example, whether it conflicts with aboriginal use of the resource. Could the Proponent please
clarify how societal values related to access to caribou were included in consideration of the
significance determination?549
Makita shared similar concerns and concluded that “due to the choice of inappropriate significance
thresholds, AREVA’s analyses of all wildlife species harvested by Inuit are inadequate”.550
In its response to the BQCMB’s final written submission, AREVA noted that its effects assessment,
including the assessment of significance, was “sufficient to inform a decision under the NIRB
process”551 and clarified in response to Makita that its methodology considered harvester perspectives
and knowledge in the effects assessment.552 In response to questions from the Baker Lake HTO
regarding AREVA’s significance determination of potential effects to caribou, AREVA clarified that it
had looked to see if the Kiggavik project would cause any change to the natural cycle of the caribou
population and through its effects assessment on habitat, movement, mortality, health, and
energetics it could not discern any change to that natural cycle: the viability of the population.553
AREVA further noted that by assessing the sustainability of the herds at both the local and regional
scale, it was undertaking a holistic approach and reflecting the values and priorities of the community
549
K. Poole, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 209210, lines 16-26 and 1-2.
550
Nunavut Makitagunarningit, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 2.
551
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-52.
552
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 443.
553
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 226, lines 3-20.
192
members.554 AREVA further noted in its written response that the long-term sustainability of the
caribou harvest is a shared responsibility between multiple stakeholders and influenced by multiple
factors. During the Final Hearing, AREVA responded to the KIA that in regards to predicting potential
effects, Traditional Knowledge was “most useful” in determining broad patterns of movement and
that it relied predominately on scientific knowledge to determine the predicted significance of a
potential effect.555 AREVA further noted that it had incorporated Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into its
significance determination of potential Project effects on marine mammals/seals by reducing its
confidence rating of the potential significance from high to moderate. AREVA noted that it “did
discuss with communities and try to get their feedback in terms of what thresholds might be
appropriate for the environmental assessment” and had developed its Road Access Management Plan
to address hunter harvest.556 AREVA further reiterated that collaborative efforts are needed with
parties responsible for hunter harvest to ensure that societal values are addressed and incorporated
through the monitoring process.557
The BQCMB noted concerns within its final written submission regarding the potential for negative
residual and cumulative impacts to result in a significant and negative effect to caribou harvest and
traditional culture. The BQCMB disagreed with AREVA’s conclusions that the Project would result in
overall positive effects on the well-being of caribou-using communities and that most of the resulting
negative effects would be moderate. The BQCMB expressed a high level of concern and noted that
the loss of traditional caribou-harvesting culture would be a major, permanent and non-mitigable
effect, and specified that that there is no certainty that AREVA’s proposed mitigation measures,
including government programs and workforce management measures, would be sufficient to
maintain traditional culture, particularly if caribou availability was reduced or the harvest not
sustainable. The BQCMB argued that the FEIS did not adequately recognize the importance of
harvesting to the cultural and spiritual way of life and instead focused on consumption. The BQCMB
recommended that AREVA re-evaluate its residual and cumulative effects assessments for caribou and
traditional culture “by giving greater weight to effects on food security and sustainability of caribou
harvest and to acknowledged effects on traditional cultures”.558 The BQCMB further recommended
that a “strongly precautionary approach [be undertaken] because of the extreme importance of
caribou health to food security and the potential effects of uranium mining on the perception of
caribou as a safe food source”.559 In its response to written submissions, AREVA acknowledged the
concerns expressed by the BQCMB and noted that “the data presented in the FEIS supports the
conclusion that there is not an actual concern” and added that part of its monitoring would include
risk management.560 In its written response to the BQCMB, AREVA reiterated its conclusions from the
FEIS and added that it does not foresee that traditional knowledge and values at the community level
would be outright lost for the foreseeable future, and did not see this as a potentially significant
effect. AREVA added that its proposed socio-economic mitigation measures would be complementary
and supplementary to government initiatives.
554
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 233, lines 16-26.
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 201-202, lines 1426 and 1-22.
556
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 210, lines 6-12.
557
A. Rosaasen, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 210, lines 11-20.
558
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 17.
559
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 18.
560
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 60.
555
193
The Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD) noted within its final written submission
concerns regarding the potential for the Project to impact its land users and harvesters, particularly as
a result of a potential aircraft crash and resulting spill of yellowcake. Within its final written
submission, the LKFN shared similar concerns with the BQCMB and AD and noted that it was not
identified in AREVA’s socio-economic assessment or in the proposed human resources development
plan. Harvesting and transboundary concerns as discussed by the AD and the LKFN are further
discussed in Section 6.8: Transboundary Effects.
Community members from Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Arviat and Coral Harbour raised concerns
regarding the potential impacts, particularly related to traditional activities, resulting from proposed
activities and components related to construction of a dock and road and shipping routes. Community
members from Baker Lake and Whale Cove noted that one of AREVA’s proposed locations to construct
a dock is used by community members to dry meat and fish and is in close proximity to nearby fishing
grounds.
There was a question raised if they can use one dock, but they want to utilize two docks, and
the want – they want to build their own dock, and you can ask Agnico Eagle, because it’s an
area where a lot of people dry their fish and dry their caribou at that site where you want to
build your dock.561
…you wanted to make docks at Nuvuttuaq, past the first point from – past that to Prince –
there are people that go camping past that point. They go fishing all the way past that first
point. I don’t think you’re going to see too many people seeing – in favour of making a dock –
past – past – past that area.562
…you want to build a dock in an area where we dry our meat, and there is good gravel over
there. I think that if you plan – if the company plans to build a dock in this area, it’s going to
spoil the pristine area where we – where we dour our – make dry meat.563
AREVA clarified that although it had identified and assessed two potential locations to construct its
proposed dock, its preference is to use the current Meadowbank dock site.564
Community members from Baker Lake and Chesterfield Inlet expressed concern regarding the
potential Project impact to the continued use of the Thelon River and Thelon Heritage Area resulting
from the potential all-season access road and shipping activities (use of the Thelon River and Thelon
Heritage Area is discussed in Section 6.8: Transboundary Effects). Community members from Baker
Lake and Chesterfield Inlet discussed the use of the Thelon River by hunters during the summer
months and questioned AREVA on whether the proposed cable ferry would impede river use of the
561
E. Voisey, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1611, lines 5-12.
D. Aksawnee, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1613,
lines 17-24.
563
E. Elytook, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1531, lines 13-19.
564
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1531-1532, lines 2126 and 1-5.
562
194
River.565, 566 An Elder from Chesterfield Inlet further explained the extensive use of the Thelon River by
community members:
-- the Thelon River itself, the harvesters do go up, and there are boats that go. If somebody
should break down or their outboard motor should break down, because there are a lot of
hunters that use the Thelon River -- I mean, maybe practically everybody in Baker Lake has
gone through the Thelon River. It's going to be -- will it be accessible for the people of Baker
Lake? Because if you're going to be across it with cables, I heard that you're going to be using
cables. If somebody should have a breakdown with their outboard motors, what would happen
then?567
AREVA responded that there would be an attendant who would be responsible for operating the cable
ferry and that it would consist of an underwater cable that would not obstruct river passage or pose
any danger to river users.568
Additional community concern was expressed by community representatives from Repulse Bay
(Naujaat) and Chesterfield Inlet on the potential impacts of shipping activities on marine hunting. One
community member from Chesterfield Inlet expressed concerns of the potential negative effects of
the currently proposed shipping routes on Southampton and Walrus Island, where there are popular
hunting grounds for walrus:569
I know you guys don't really have the same shipping routes in Hudson Strait and Hudson Bay,
but I'm -- I'm just wondering if you guys can make recommendations to change the shipping
routes. As you can see on the map, it goes through the north end of Coats Island on the south
side of Southampton Island, and it goes in between the popular hunting ground for both
owners when they want to catch walrus on Walrus Island. You cannot see it on the – the
handout you guys did, but on the bigger map, you can see a little back on the -- on the north -on the north side of the shipping route. That's one of -- one of three areas, I guess, around the
island that is a walrus haul-out. So that's one part of my question on this shipping route, and
the other part is how -- do you guys have an idea as to how much international shipping you
guys are going to be receiving, other than the Canadian vessels that you might -- you guys
might use?”
In response, AREVA noted that in response to similar concerns being raised during community
consultations it had committed to changing the proposed barge route so as “not to disturb the wildlife
565
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript March 10, 2015, pp. 1577-1578, lines 23-26 and 1-2.
566
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1577-1578,
lines 22-26 and 1-2.
567
L. Mimialik, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1645,
lines 1-12.
568
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1046, lines 1-11.
569
D. Matoo, Chesterfield Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, , pp. 16071608, lines 18-26 and 1-10.
195
or the marine use for locals,” which included staying a minimum of 20 kilometres (km) from Walrus
Island and that it would further stay more than 30 km from a bird sanctuary on Coats Island.570
A community representative of Repulse Bay (Naujaat) predicted that the proposed shipping routes
would overlap with the migration patterns of bowhead whale who use the waters near Repulse Bay
(Naujaat) as their feeding grounds, and that this could impact those who harvest the whales in that
area. It was also noted that members of other Kivalliq communities, including Chesterfield Inlet and
Coral Harbour, harvest bowhead whales near Repulse Bay (Naujaat):571
My next question will be -- we are from Repulse Bay. We got abundance of wildlife. For
example, Chesterfield, Rankin Inlet or Coral comes to Repulse Bay to harvest bowhead whale,
and the whole community of Kivalliq harvest narwhal, and that's a feeding ground in Repulse.
The reason I'm going to ask this question is they'll be using the road, those mammals that
migrates to Repulse Bay to their feeding ground. What are the action plan to protect the
marine mammals for substance for being transported by sea?
In response, AREVA discussed its proposed spill response and mitigation measures, noting that
The project is designed to have a minimal impact on all wildlife. The marine shipping will be
done at – at speeds that should cause minimal disturbance to wildlife, controlled speeds. Ships
are now required to be double-hulled. There will be a spill-response plan and capability in -- in
case of a spill.572
5.7.3 Views of the Board
The Board notes that there were several outstanding concerns raised by parties within the final
written submissions and during the Final Hearing on the potential effects of the proposed access road
options on hunter harvest and caribou distribution. The Board agrees with concerns that the
proposed all-season access road would likely result in increased harvesting pressure. This increased
hunting pressure, facilitated by ease of road access to caribou herds, could increase population
pressures on the herds. Increased hunting, combined with noise from road traffic/mine operations,
may displace caribou migration patterns, causing hunters to have to go further from Baker Lake, at
greater expense, to sustain present or future sustenance yields.
The Board agrees with the Government of Nunavut (GN) concerns expressed during the Final Hearing
regarding the monitoring of harvest pressure along access roads and the structure of the proposed
Hunter Harvest Study.
570
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1608, lines 12-25.
E. Haqpi, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. p. 1494,
lines 13-23.
572
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1494-1495, lines
25-26 and 1-4.
571
196
While the Board notes the GN and AREVA’s recommendation that the Baker Lake HTO assume an
active role in monitoring and data collection with regards to the proposed hunter harvest studies, the
Board agrees with the Baker Lake HTO as regards to its lack of capacity to undertake such a role.
The Board agrees with the KIA’s observation at the Final Hearing that Inuit Qaujimaningit differs from
AREVA’s conclusions that wildlife, harvesting, and food security would not be adversely impacted by
the Project; the Board believes that to be particularly applicable to the Proponent’s assessment of the
proposed access road option and shipping components for the Project.528 As discussed briefly in
Section 5.1: Economic Development and Opportunities, concerns were raised that food security issues
could arise if caribou migration was adversely affected by mining development.
In addition to harvesting of caribou, the Board acknowledges other traditional uses that would overlap
with proposed Project activities. The all season road would impact cabins in the vicinity of the road.
The proposed ferry crossing the Thelon River, should the proposed all-season access road be selected,
would impact public use of the Thelon River. The proposed mine site itself, including the selection of
Judge Sissons Lake to source water, intersect with some local hunting and camping sites. Increased
shipping through the Chesterfield Narrows could result in changes to harvest activities in that area.
5.7.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit traditional activity and knowledge having regard to information presented in any
future project proposal.
5.8
Non-Traditional Land Use
5.8.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential Project effects on non-traditional land use and presented its findings in
Volume 1, Section 8.6 and Volume 9, Section 12 of the FEIS. AREVA predominantly used information
available from the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) on the Keewatin and North Baffin Regional
Land Use Plans, which included interactive maps, protected areas, tourism, commercial fishing, and
mining and oil and gas extraction. AREVA concluded that it did not expect the Project to have any
effects on non-traditional land use, except on land-use outside of the municipal boundaries of Baker
Lake and the shipping channel into Baker Lake. AREVA further predicted that the Project could result
in potential residual and cumulative effects if it facilitates additional uranium mining in the area that
would not occur in the absence of the Project.
AREVA noted that it did not expect that the Project as proposed would have any significant
environmental effects on resources that could have commercial harvesting value, for example, on
caribou or fur bearing mammals. Consequently, AREVA did not assess commercial harvesting further.
In addition, AREVA noted that the proposed mine site did not overlap with other mineral leases and
that the Project would be located outside of the Thelon and Kazan watersheds, which it noted are the
primary tourist attractions in the Kivalliq region. However, AREVA predicted that the Project could
facilitate further mining development, specifically regarding uranium resources, in the Kivalliq region
and that resulting potential cumulative effects could affect the tourism industry in the Region.
Consequently, due to the potential residual cumulative effects, AREVA assessed the potential Project
197
effects on the development of the mining sector and resulting effects on tourism, as well as potential
effects on Baker Lake.
Mining
AREVA noted that as of 2012, over one third of the Kivalliq region’s 28 active mining exploration
projects were for uranium, and were located west of Baker Lake. AREVA projected that the Project
would therefore set precedence for uranium mining in the Kivalliq region, would develop
infrastructure, including either of the proposed road options, and processing plant capacity west of
Baker Lake that could potentially be utilized for further uranium mining. AREVA further projected that
the Project could facilitate growth of labour forces, businesses, and educational institutions specific to
uranium mining. Furthermore, AREVA indicated that these factors could contribute to decreased
development costs, resulting in increased feasibility to other companies. AREVA also discussed the
uncertainty surrounding uranium mining in Nunavut and the lack of consensus regarding public
support of the industry.
AREVA stated that pursuant to the Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan, the proposed Project components
would be located on lands designated for mixed use and those that encourage sustainable economic
development, which AREVA indicated included mining activity. AREVA added that the Project would
need to take into account areas of ‘various sensitivities,’ which would include the Thelon River as a
Heritage River and a possible future commercial fishing zone along the Hudson Bay coast from Arviat
to Chesterfield Inlet. AREVA acknowledged concerns expressed through Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in
Rankin Inlet over the potential increase to shipping activities due to the Project, and predicted that the
summer marine shipping requirements from Chesterfield Inlet to Baker Lake would run close to full
capacity at the narrows. In addition, AREVA expected that municipal shipping requirements of Baker
Lake would ‘increase over time,’ which could result in the need for any large development west of
Baker Lake to construct a road bypassing the narrows, although it added that increased costs to
construct such a road, as well as increased transportation costs, could also represent increased costs
to development.
AREVA similarly concluded that that the Project could result in a significant positive residual and
cumulative effect to an expansion of the uranium mining industry in the Kivalliq region, if uranium
mining was a desired outcome for Kivalliq residents.
Tourism
AREVA noted that the Project would be located outside of the Thelon and Kazan watersheds, the
primary tourist attractions for the western Kivalliq region, and is not expected to have significant
environmental effects outside of the Project area, including the proposed access road options.
Consequently, AREVA concluded that the tourism sector would not be adversely affected by the
Project. Furthermore, AREVA projected that with the use of heavy mining traffic, few tourists would
use the all-season access road option, if constructed, and that the use of a cable ferry crossing the
Thelon River would not negatively affect tourist use of the river, for example by discouraging river use.
AREVA added that while the proposed mine site location was not a tourist destination at the time of
the production of the FEIS, NPC maps indicate the potential for tourists to fish on the eastern side of
Judge Sissons Lake. AREVA further observed that there were little incentives for people in the region
to invest in the development of outfitting businesses. However, it indicated that tourism does provide
communities with business opportunities, however limited, and outlined that the Project could
provide a disincentive to further development of a tourism sector.
198
AREVA predicted that there could be potential for the Project to result in negative cumulative effects
on the tourism industry ‘if regulatory decisions favored mining in the western Kivalliq region’ and
individuals were discouraged from undertaking tourist activities in the region. However, AREVA also
predicted that if the tourism industry was developed through the use of shared infrastructure with the
Project, this could result in a positive effect.
The Proponent observed that many of the uranium exploration projects in the area, discussed above,
are located in the Thelon watershed. AREVA noted that although the Project would not be located
within the Thelon Basin, expansion of the mining industry within the basin could result in a
transboundary effect, as tourism in the Northwest Territories includes trips that originate in the
Territory and pass through the Thelon basin. AREVA stated that it could not determine the potential
significance of any disincentive to tourism as a result of expanded uranium mining without knowing
Nunavut’s future land use planning decisions.
Baker Lake
AREVA assessed potential Project effects on Baker Lake from any associated migration and economic
growth as relates to demand for land to residential and business purposes. AREVA observed that
Baker Lake’s zoning map indicates the potential for future building in both residential and commercial
areas. As Crown land surrounds the community, AREVA inferred that municipal boundaries could be
extended should overcrowding occur. Furthermore, AREVA predicted that through the potential
future facilitation of additional uranium mining projects, the Project could result in additional land use
effects in Baker Lake. Although AREVA predicted that the Project would have positive residual and
cumulative effects on Baker Lake, it clarified that if the community grows at faster rates than it did at
the time of FEIS, and if it is cumulatively affected by additional mining projects, there could be
resulting significant effects. AREVA noted that as a result of the high uncertainty related to regulatory
decisions and the timing of any future uranium development, the significance of its predictions are
undetermined and it has low confidence in those predictions. AREVA suggested that Baker Lake
develop a hamlet land use plan to guide future community development.
AREVA also discussed the potential Project effects on the capacity to increase shipping over time in
Baker Lake, which could result in a negative effect. In conjunction with the shipping demands for the
Meadowbank Gold Mine and the Hamlet of Baker Lake, AREVA estimated that based on the highest
case number of barge trips over a 60 day shipping season, shipping activity would be close to capacity.
AREVA noted that there would be multiple mitigating factors, including the likelihood that Project
shipping would not overlap with the shipping requirements of the Meadowbank Gold Mine due to the
planned premature closure of the mine in 2017, and for the potential of an increased shipping season
due to climate change. AREVA concluded that although it does not consider capacity constraints to
result in the short to medium term, it is committed to establishing transport plans to ensure Baker
Lake can continue to meet its resupply needs.
5.8.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) commented on the
responsibilities of various GN departments in managing the Thelon and Kazan Heritage Rivers and the
current Canadian Heritage Rivers System Management Plan for the Thelon River, which it noted
protects a one kilometre portion of land extending from each bank. The GN requested that AREVA
provide additional information on how it plans to work under the Management Plan and to
collaborate with the applicable GN department(s) with regards to the proposed components within
199
the Thelon Management Area, including Quarry 12, the all-season access road alternative, and the
ferry crossing. In its response to final written submissions, AREVA agreed with the GN’s
recommendation to coordinate with the partners of the Thelon Heritage River on all activities that
have not been finalized in the FEIS, and with regards to all potential disturbances to the Thelon River
that occur and were unforeseen when constructing the management plans.
The GN further commented within its final written submission on AREVA’s proposal within its Borrow
Pits and Quarry Management Plan to develop a detailed mitigation plan for proposed quarry site 12,
due to the proximity to the Thelon Heritage River, prior to site development. The GN recommended
that AREVA submit a proposed impact mitigation plan to the GN prior to construction and that the
quarry not be utilized without review and approval by the Thelon Heritage River partners. In its
response to final written submissions, AREVA noted that, as outlined in its FEIS, it would provide a
detailed quarry management plan prior to construction, which would include mitigation measures for
Quarry 12, and would submit it to the requested GN departments. AREVA further noted that if
potential impacts from use of Quarry 12 are immitigable, it would eliminate the location as a quarry
site.
The GN also commented on AREVA’s statements that the Municipal boundaries of Baker Lake could be
amended if overcrowding should occur, and observed that it did not believe that changing a municipal
boundary was as ‘straight forward’ as AREVA suggested within its FEIS. Consequently, the GN advised
AREVA that altering municipal boundaries was not a realistic solution to any Project effects and any
reference to it should be removed from the impact statement and associated management plans. In
its response to the GN’s Final Written Submission, AREVA noted that it had used updated information
on migration as it became available for its assessment, as referenced in Volume 9, Section 8 of the
FEIS, wherein it presented its conclusion that it did not anticipate a Project induced impact from inmigration. AREVA further agreed that its Kiggavik management plans would not reference alteration
of municipal boundaries as mitigation for Project induced Municipal growth.
Within its final written submission, Transportation Canada (TC) noted that the Thelon River was not a
waterway listed on the Schedule of the Navigation Protection Act (NPA).
Within her final written submission, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson commented on the potential for the
tourism sector to be developed within the Kivalliq region, particularly Baker Lake as the only inland
community in Nunavut, and recommended that collaborative studies between government and
industry be undertaken to collect baseline information and conduct monitoring on heritage studies.
Within its response to written submissions, AREVA noted the GN’s economic development plans with
regards to tourism and mining and identified sections within the FEIS wherein it discussed potential
impacts to tourism as well as its discussion related to the Thelon River’s Canadian Heritage River
status. During the Final Hearing, a community member expressed concern regarding potential impacts
of the Project on tourism activities in the area, noting that
[my fishing] lodge is located at Schultz Lake. It’s not operating at the moment, but it’s very
close to the exploration activities that are happening right now. Our past guests went there
200
for the serenity and the beauty of the land. My daughter and I hope that when her sons are
adults, they will take over the operation of the lodge.573
The NIRB staff requested clarification on whether the proposed infrastructure, specifically the mill and
tailings impoundment facilities, would have variability, or the ability to accommodate future
expansion for the Project and whether the assessment includes this variation or ability. AREVA
indicated that it has assessed the Project for 25-year life; however it has identified excess tailings
capacity in the FEIS to accommodate potential future discoverable resources.574
During the Final Hearing, the Board requested clarification on whether there has been any uranium
mines developed in the north. AREVA responded that other mineral mines have been developed and
are in operation in northern Canada in similar climates as compared to what is proposed for the
Kiggavik Project and that currently there are operating uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan.575
5.8.3 Views of the Board
The Board agrees with AREVA’s prediction that the Project could result in potential residual and
cumulative effects if it facilitates additional uranium mining in the area that would not occur in the
absence of the Project.
The Board acknowledges that the proposed mine and all-season access road options could impact the
aesthetics of the area, and potentially impact tourism activities.
5.8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit non-traditional activity having regard to information presented in any future
project proposal.
5.9
Cultural, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
5.9.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential Project effects on cultural, archaeological and paleontological resources
and presented its findings in Volume 1, Section 8.6.2 and in Volume 9, Part 2 of the FEIS. AREVA
presented its archaeology baseline in Volume 9, Appendix 9B and associated management plans in
Volume 9, Appendix 9D. AREVA stated that there are few known cultural, archeological, or
paleontological resources within the Project area, and noted that the archeological sites that have
been identified are predominantly of Inuit origins. AREVA predicted that the Project would result in
long-term adverse, isolated, direct and indirect residual effects of low magnitude at a local and
regional extent, and would not result in cumulative effects.
573
R. Kudloo, Paauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10,
2015, p.1661, lines 18-26.
574
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 161-162, lines 14-26
and 1-2.
575
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 164, lines 8-20.
201
AREVA observed that the known archaeological sites are predominantly camps, characterized by
remnants of stone features, including tent rings, caches, and kayak stands. AREVA identified grave
sites in collaboration with Baker Lake Elders; however, none of the identified sites were within the
Project area. Other identified cultural sites include areas of spiritual significance, and harvesting sites.
In the FEIS, AREVA stated that very few of the archeological sites (and no grave sites) would likely be
affected by the project, and that even fewer sites were identified as culturally important by local Inuit
groups. AREVA noted that the proposed all-season access road option has the greatest potential to
impact cultural sites. AREVA added that most of the archaeological sites in the western Kivalliq region
are distant from the mine area, and that sites within 30 kilometres of the project area would be
protected as the layout of the Project is finalized. AREVA noted that although the preservation of the
sites is of cultural and emotional importance to local Inuit, there has been little recent use of the
Project area for cultural and archeological purposes by local Inuit, and that the sites are not often
visited.
In the FEIS, AREVA identified that the potential disruption to the Thelon River Basin through future
development, as previously discussed in Section 5.8: Non-Traditional Land Use. The Thelon River is
important to Inuit, and also Dene and Métis groups of the Northwest Territories. AREVA further noted
that although the Project components would not be located within the Thelon River Basin, the
proposed all-season access road, if built, would traverse lower parts of the Basin and cross the Thelon
River.
AREVA outlined that, through implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the potential direct
and indirect Project effects to archaeological resources during all Project phases would not be
significant. AREVA developed an Archaeological Resource Management Plan to enable compliance
with various legislation and guidelines, including the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavut
Act, and the Nunavut Archaeological and Paleontological Sites Regulations (2011). The ferry crossing
for the proposed all-season access road alternative would be located within the Thelon Heritage River
Corridor, and would have regard to the framework of the Thelon Canadian Heritage River Systems
Management Plan. This would strive to meet the following objectives:
 Manage heritage resources within one km of each bank;
 Conserve and interpret identified heritage resources through existing legislation and
regulations;
 Encourage and monitor recreational use of the river;
 Give national perspective to visitors regarding the role of the basin in northern aboriginal
history; and,
 Foster an appreciation of Inuit culture.576
AREVA concluded with medium confidence that, due to proposed management and engagement
practices such as opportunities for homeland visits for Kivalliq residents, the potential impacts of the
576
FEIS, Volume 9, Appendix 9D.
202
Project on preservation and access to cultural and heritage sites would likely be positive and of low
magnitude.
5.9.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) commented on the
determination of site significance with regards to archaeological and heritage resources. The GN
commented on AREVA’s conclusion that that as it did not expect any significant sites to be affected by
the Project and consequently did not expect any resulting cumulative effects for archaeological
resources. The GN requested that AREVA clarify how it came to the determination that no significant
sites would be affected by the Project when it did not carry out a site significance assessment for all of
the identified potentially affected archaeological sites. The GN further requested that AREVA
complete and provide the status and determination of site significance for all 28 identified sites by
February 28, 2015.
Within its response to final written submissions, AREVA noted that it had recorded all sites identified
in the local assessment area as required by the GN Department of Culture and Heritage (GN-CH).
AREVA stated that it would incorporate all data collected into the Project’s final engineering design,
and abide by GN regulatory requirements to avoid all known archaeological sites by 30 metres. AREVA
committed to fully assessing any site identified within the 30-metre buffer of a facility, and to fully
assessing the site, determining significance of the discovery, and developing a mitigation plan in
consultation with the GN-CH. AREVA observed that determining archaeological site significance often
involves intrusive investigation methods and, consequently, would prefer to delay investigation of
sites until project component locations are finalized.
The GN-CH also commented on AREVA’s Archaeological Resource Management Plan, noting that it
was incomplete and substantially lacking in details. The GN-CH recommended that AREVA provide a
concrete and detailed plan, which includes information on the status of individual archaeological sites,
the timing, nature, and scope of all archaeological mitigation work, details of measures implemented
or to be implemented for the protection/avoidance of individual archaeological sites, a detailed
monitoring plan, and an updated development Project footprint. Additionally, within its final written
submission, the GN-CH requested mid-to-large scale maps with specific information relating to the
final location of project infrastructure in relation to known archaeological sites. GN’s stated that this
would assist the department in providing appropriate recommendations for the protection and
management of heritage resources.
In its response to the GN’s final written submission, AREVA responded that AREVA would develop and
provide a detailed Archaeological Resource Management Plan to the GN-CH following detailed
engineering to be undertaken at the CNSC permitting and licensing stage. AREVA noted that the final
engineering drawings were not yet available, and committed to providing the GN-CH with maps
showing all inventoried archaeological sites within the local assessment area in relation to proposed
Project components from the FEIS. During the Final Hearing, the GN did not note any outstanding
concerns and stated that AREVA had submitted the above noted maps to the GN’s territorial
203
archaeologist.577 In response to a question raised by a Grade 11 Social Student Class from the Jonah
Amit’naaq Secondary School, the GN’s Territorial Archaeologist explained the procedures that AREVA
would be required to follow with regards to potentially affected archaeological sites. The GN noted
that that if an archaeological site would potentially be impacted by the Project, the Proponent would
be required to request a GN permit, and further noted that a consultation process would be required
through permitting. The GN further noted the role of the Inuit Heritage Trust.578
The Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) and a community member from
Baker Lake disagreed with AREVA’s conclusion that there are no known grave sites near the project
area. A Baker Lake HTO representative noted that
You mentioned that there were no graves identified to the [Local Assessment
AREVA]. When you said there’s no grave sites identified in the areas, I’m just kind of
wondering whereabouts? What areas are you talking about? Because my … own
dear mother is buried right by your site where you plan to have your mine.579
The community member stated that
There are some grave sites in the area where AREVA wants to build the mine, and
some of the burial sites belong to my ancestors. I want to make sure that the
company is aware of where the grave sites are. There’s two along the area. There
are two grave sites behind Blueberry Hill. They’re marked – identified with a cross. If
they’re going to be building a road in and around there, I just want to make sure
those grave sites aren’t disturbed. One of them is my mom.580
In response to the community member, AREVA noted that it conducted its archaeological sites within
the Project footprint, and noted that the sites it identified were not grave sites and that the project
design would ensure they were not obstructed. AREVA further noted the steps it would take if it
discovered an archaeological site.581 In response to questions by NTI, AREVA noted that:
if any unexpected sites are encountered during operations, activities will cease, the territorial
archaeologist will be consulted, and if results are significant and warrant further action,
discussions will be undertaken with Inuit Heritage Trust and members of the local community
to decide on the appropriate actions.582
In response to Paula Kigjugalik Hughson’s question during the Final Hearing on how Baker Lake
community members participated in AREVA’s archaeological baseline studies, AREVA noted that from
577
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, 768769, lines 19-26 and 1-11.
578
S. LeBlanc, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p.
2172, lines 1-19.
579
D. Toolooktook, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 513, lines 10-16.
580
L. T. Ayaga, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p.2203,
lines 3-12.
581
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, p. 2204, lines 15-26.
582
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 545, lines 12-21.
204
2007 to 2013 its archaeologist hired local community members to assist in conducting the
archaeological surveys and that community consultation was undertaken to collect information and
input on potential locations of heritage sites.583
5.9.3 Views of the Board
During the Final Hearing, the Board heard conflicting information the Proponent and Baker Lake
community members with regards to the presence, or absence, of grave sites near the proposed
project location. The Board acknowledges AREVA’s commitment to provide a detailed Archaeological
Resource Management Plan to the Government of Nunavut’s (GN) recommendation that AREVA
consult with the GN-Department of Culture and Heritage to develop mitigation plans.
5.9.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit cultural, archeological and paleontological resources having regard to
information presented in any future project proposal.
5.10 Individual and Community Wellness
5.10.1
Views of the Proponent
Through community consultations, and use of socio-economic and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit data,
AREVA assessed the potential direct and indirect Project effects on individual and community
wellness, and presented its findings in Volume 1, Section 8.6 and Volume 9, Section 10 of the FEIS.
AREVA noted that “potential effects on individual, family and community well-being are complex, far
reaching, and unpredictable.”584 AREVA predicted that while it expects the Project to result in overall
positive benefits, there would be an initial transition period where there would be a reduced sense of
wellbeing.
AREVA predicted that Project effects would be positive and significant if individuals take advantage of
growing opportunities and manage changes to increased incomes, rotational work stresses, changes to
public health, safety and social capital. However, AREVA noted that “there are a number of
confounding factors that raise concerns, including cultural change, negative social pathologies and
challenges to accessing Project benefits.”585 AREVA predicted that while many individuals in the
Kivalliq region would benefit from the Project, including those who are directly or indirectly employed
by the Project, for the more vulnerable society members and/or those who make poor personal
choices, the potential effects could be negative. Lastly, AREVA noted that although potential negative
impacts would generally be felt at the individual and family level, it expects the Project to have
significant negative effects on public security, especially in Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet. In the FEIS,
the Proponent concluded that climate change, rotational work and shifting social roles have the
potential to negatively impact stress and wellbeing.
583
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 524, lines 10-20.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 10-1.
585
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 10-1.
584
205
To analyze the potential residual effects of the Project on individual, family and community wellbeing,
AREVA focused on the following six (6) aspects in the FEIS:
 Health
 Family function
 Savings
 Public security
 Public health and safety
 Social cohesion and participation
Health
AREVA predicted that the Project would have overall positive effects on physical and mental health
through worker health and safety training, and from the potential for increased income to alleviate
overcrowded housing conditions. The Proponent noted that it does not expect the Project to have
negative effects on infectious or chronic diseases. AREVA indicated that there was community
concern that the Project could potentially result in adverse health effects resulting from an increase in
substance abuse, change to diet, and inappropriate sexual behavior. However, AREVA noted that drug
and alcohol abuse are a general issue and concern in the Kivalliq region and not directly attributable to
increased disposable income. It was noted that although people did not necessarily observe a
correlation between increases in drug abuse with the development of the Meadowbank Gold Mine,
any resulting connection was attributed to Southern mining employees who import drugs rather than
an increase in drug use amongst Inuit workers. AREVA noted that police have identified a correlation
between calls involving alcohol abuse /domestic violence and the end of rotational shifts, or days
when alcohol was delivered. AREVA discussed the potential for an alcohol and drug free work place,
which it plans to instil, to reduce these potential issues. AREVA noted that its proposed mitigation
measures include plans to offer on-site counseling, an Employee and Family Assistance Program, and
health and safety training. However, AREVA noted that its programs would only be available to its
employees and families, and that while there are GN services and public health education programs
available to Kivalliq community members, addiction counseling services are facing challenges in
meeting the demand.
The Proponent also acknowledged the potential for health to be adversely impacted if a traditional
diet of country food is replaced by store bought foods of limited nutritional value. AREVA identified
potential related health concerns to include diabetes, or even hunger. However, AREVA noted that
although there is the potential for such negative effects, employment could offset the lack of country
food through the ability to afford healthy alternatives. AREVA noted that these effects could be offset
through health education programs offered by AREVA and through government.
AREVA noted that comments from people’s experiences with the Meadowbank Gold Mine indicated a
prominent concern was an increase in inappropriate sexual behaviors, prostitution and sexual
harassment (potentially sexual assault). AREVA reviewed a report by the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of
Canada that outlined experiences of women working at mine sites and the challenges that women,
both workers and spouses of workers, have faced with rotational work. Based on the findings and
proposed mitigation measures within this report, AREVA noted its intentions to create work force
management measures in an effort to discourage harassment and encourage people, specifically
women, to come forward if it occurs. Furthermore, AREVA noted its intention to discuss additional
206
mitigation measures with the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. AREVA committed to further
developing health and safety protocols during the licensing stage and to collaborate with community
groups in Nunavut, as well as to comply with Canadian Human Rights legislation, Canada Labour Code,
and Canadian Labour law.
Family Function
AREVA expects the Project to provide a range of opportunities that could result in improved
livelihoods and a broadening of choices for those who are able to take advantage of them. AREVA
noted that increases in income and cultural shifts could have various positive and negative
implications for wellbeing at the individual, family and community levels. The Proponent noted that
many people would benefit from an expanding economy where job security may improve standards of
living, secure their role as providers for their families, and enhance household economic security.
However, AREVA recognized that poor financial decisions, stress, fears of infidelity and changing
cultural roles have the potential to negatively impact family dynamics. AREVA identified that the more
serious negative effects could include: domestic violence, divorce and resultant single parent
households, and mental health challenges including suicides. AREVA considered, except with regards
to suicide, that women and their young children would be the most vulnerable. AREVA intends to
respond to these challenges by implementing appropriate work force management measures and
identified the role of the GN in providing support for community members.
Savings
Within the FEIS, the Proponent noted that although Nunavut has the highest savings rate in Canada,
this has not translated into ‘a large amount of savings,’ for the territory. AREVA noted that the
Conference Board of Canada had indicated that, taking into account the expected construction and
operations phases of the Meliadine Gold Mine, income rates would rise by almost 80% over the next
decade, with the savings rate forecast to remain between 31% and 33%. The Proponent noted that
through consultation, both Inuit and non-Inuit observed that people at the household level would
need assistance with personal financial management in conjunction with increasing incomes.
Furthermore, youth participants identified potential difficulties in saving as a result of cultural
expectations and increasing rents; some argued that the potential negative effects would not
outweigh the benefits. AREVA committed to providing financial management training programs to
assist workers with managing their budget.
Public Security
As indicated in Table 10.1-2 in the FEIS, AREVA predicted that the Project would result in negative
effects public health and safety through construction and operations, and noted that these would
largely be felt in the early years. AREVA predicted that any increase in crime rates or nuisance
behaviours could give rise to a lower sense of wellbeing. AREVA acknowledged that the Project would
result in effects to public security if it resulted in increased crime and public nuisance as a result of inmigration. AREVA discussed that while increased income can act as an incentive against crime, it could
alternatively further facilitate acts of crime. AREVA acknowledged that crime rates are high in the
Kivalliq region and that while violent crime rates have not changed much over the study period, total
crime rates have steadily increased. The Proponent noted that violent crimes are most often a result
of domestic disputes, rather than random aggression in public.
During construction and operations of the Baker Lake docking facilities, some employees would reside
in Baker Lake. AREVA noted that it expects that increased incomes and migration to Baker Lake and
Rankin Inlet would result in more crime, although not necessarily an increase in crime rates or in
207
violent crimes. AREVA projected a correlation between out of area mining workers and public security
concerns including prostitution, harassment and alcohol abuse AREVA plans to mitigate these issues
at the mine site by enforcing a worker code of conduct, and being open to hearing from Baker Lake
community members on potential negative effects. AREVA indicated that crime is the responsibility of
the police and community justice committees.
Public Health and Safety
As discussed further in Section 5.13: Health and Safety, AREVA agreed to adhere to health and safety
legislation, noting that it would strive to continually improve upon its safety records through
application of best practice. The FEIS explained that although risk cannot be entirely eliminated,
AREVA would develop and enforce clear workplace health and safety regulations, health and safety
training, provision of safety equipment, emergency response planning, availability of medical and
evacuation services for work forces, and would develop and monitor other health and safety
measures. AREVA predicted that the primary risk to public health and safety would be related to
potential traffic accidents along the proposed access road options.
AREVA has noted continued concerns about the risk of uranium to public safety and has committed to
continued public information sessions, education events and ongoing public discussions about the
positive and negative aspects of uranium development and policy decisions on the part of GN and
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI). AREVA committed to increasing public confidence and
awareness about the Project through engagement activities. This is further discussed in Section 6.1:
Human Health and Risk Assessment.
Social Cohesion and Participation
Within the FEIS, AREVA recognized potential social challenges resulting from workers transitioning
from traditional activities to the wage based economy and possibly impacting traditional culture and
wellbeing. AREVA concluded that for many, this transition is welcomed, “as some people clearly want
to move into wage employment.”586 However, AREVA also noted that although some people may
benefit from this shift, others may find that managing this change could potentially undermine social
relationships and create disadvantages to an existing vulnerable population. A potential consequence
of weakening traditional culture “may in turn generate a weakening of social cohesion, which has
served people well over the years, in response to very challenging conditions for earning
livelihoods.”586 AREVA further discussed the potential for social issues to arise from in-migration of
different Inuit groups and/or non-Inuit, and identified evidence that in-migrants were not welcomed
at the family and community level. AREVA expects this to change as the community becomes more
diversified. Through analysis of its socio-economic baseline data, AREVA identified some “ineffective
interactions” between hamlets and outside organizations and agencies. AREVA’s position was that
this highlighted the value for collaborative mechanisms, including monitoring. AREVA noted that it
has, and commits to continue to provide, support to individuals and organizations to enhance capacity
to engage with the Project, learn and participate in decision making that affects them.
Cumulative and Transboundary effects
AREVA noted that many of the potential Project effects would be additive and stated that over time
the positive effects on individuals and families could provide a positive societal shift. AREVA further
586
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 10-17.
208
noted that increased economic opportunities could further widen opportunities and improve
wellbeing, including individual choices on type of employment. At the community level, this could
limit potential negative effects of inequities. However, AREVA also noted the potential for additive
negative effects on traditional culture, specifically diet, as well as sexually transmitted infections.
The Proponent did not predict any potential transboundary Project effects on individual and
community wellness.
5.10.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) noted several reports that stressed the need for improved community and
individual mental health and wellness services in Nunavut. NTI/KIA proposed collaboration between
communities, the Government of Nunavut (GN) and AREVA in developing cost effective approaches to
mental health issues, such as Peer Support programs. AREVA concluded in its response to written
submissions that its social management planning, as detailed in its FEIS, includes activities that AREVA
proposed to undertake to address potential individual and family problems. AREVA further noted that
its proposed measures, including others related to supporting traditional culture, education and
training, and public health and safety, would significantly contribute to the well-being of the Kivalliq
residents. AREVA stated that it has not committed to direct intervention in community level peer
support training as this would be a complex undertaking which is more appropriate to the GN, but
would be open to discussing with the GN possible avenues of participation.
During the Final Hearing, the GN stated that it was encouraged by the number of workforce
management strategies proposed by the Proponent and requested that the Proponent report annually
to the Kivalliq Socio-Economic Monitoring Committee on the results of its workforce management
strategies to facilitate effective assessment. The GN indicated that it was satisfied with AREVA’s
commitment to its request. 587
Within its final written submission, the KIA stated that “traditional culture is an important part in Inuit
culture and it plays an important role in individual, family and community well-being.”588 The KIA
requested the Proponent elaborate on its conclusions that the Project could result in significant
negative effects on traditional culture yet have a significant positive effect on individual, family and
community wellbeing. In its response to final written submissions, AREVA explained that although it
expected the Project would result in negative effects on traditional culture, this is not the only
determinant of wellbeing. AREVA noted that through its assessment of potential effects on
individuals, family and community well-being, it found that “given expected benefits to, for example,
physical and mental health, household economic security, family function, and safety on the land – the
effects are expected to be positive ‘overall.”589
587
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 767768, lines 14-26 and 1-2.
588
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, p. 37.
589
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-420.
209
During the Final Hearing, a Baker Lake community representative expressed some of the difficulties
the community has experienced as a result of the environmental assessment process for the Kiggavik
Project. He explained how the community has been divided in debate over whether members support
the Project. He noted that the community “has been broken up” and indicated that this has had an
impact on community and individual well-being.
To my question, and it is to AREVA with regard to their presentation on engagement. Inuit -like, caribou are -- do not like conflict, and this community has been -- has been broken up, and
that's -- you know, that's a very hard thing for people to live through. 590
An Elder from Whale Cove commented on the social issues in Baker Lake and noted that many people
rely on social assistance. The Elder questioned AREVA on how the Project would benefit Elders and if
there would be any compensation for Elders.
There are -- I know that people rely on social assistance, but it's very limited as well. And our
exposures are -- there's -- because with our extreme weather, we do need proper clothing, we
need warm clothing. How? How are you going to benefit the elders, if your -- if your project is
approved? Maybe have a compensation for the elders, because when we do have our
infrastructure, infrastructures would be very beneficial for this community. 591
An Elder from Baker Lake expressed concerns that due to the current reliance of Baker Lake families
and youth on social assistance, the lack of willingness to work as a result of deductions to assistance,
and the potential for caribou to change migration patterns if the Kiggavik Project were to occur, would
create hardship and starvation for those continuing to rely on social assistance.592
Right now -- and right now we rely on social assistance, and the young people are relying on
social assistance. And sometimes the people are not willing to work because there's going to
be deductions from their social assistance. And -- and I -- I want you -- very, very -- we are in a
starvation situation because there was no caribou. And I rely on caribou right now because
they are my food. And -- and there are a lot of people that were collaring caribou, and they
diverted their route. They -- I didn't know that the caribou diverted their -- their main migration
route. 593
590
S. Arngna’naaq, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN0903 Transcript, March 12, p. 2065, lines 2-23.
E. Voisey, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript File No. 09MN003, March 10, p. 1507, lines 7-16.
592
J. Nukik, Elder from Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, pp. 22182219, lines 25-26 and 1-9.
593
J. Nukik, Elder from Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13, 2015, pp. 22182219, lines 25-26 and 1-9.
591
210
5.10.3
Views of the Board
The Board heard from some members of the community who supported the Project, some who were
opposed, and some who were of the view that the Project could proceed provided that traditional
activities were protected. The Board believes that this dialogue, while stressful to some in the
community, is a valuable and essential way of ensuring that views are heard during its process.
5.10.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit individual and community wellness having regard to information presented in
any future project proposal.
5.11 Community Infrastructure and Public Services
5.11.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment on potential effects to Public Infrastructure and Services in Volume 9,
Section 11, of the FEIS. AREVA’s assessment noted that the Project would have significant long-term
residual effects on housing, health services, roads, other transportation facilities, telecommunications
and utilities on the Kivalliq communities, specifically Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet. AREVA predicted
that the potential cumulative effects on infrastructure and public services would be negative if the
capacity to provide for those needs did not grow at a comparable rate, especially where rapid
expansion of the mining sector would be additive and at the same significance level as predicted for
each residual effect identified.
AREVA identified a potential residual effect of the Project to be increased demand for public
infrastructure and services. AREVA predicted that this would have a negative effect if government
were unable to meet the demand, but an overall positive and significant effect if the demand could be
met by the Government of Nunavut (GN) and the Hamlet. Where expansion of existing services and
additional services (such as daycare, Elder care, or health care) could be provided by the GN, Hamlet,
or private sector, AREVA predicted there would be a significant cumulative benefit. AREVA further
noted the potential for increased costs to governments as a result of increased demand on
recreational services and landfills in communities closest to the project; however, it also noted that
reduced demand would be expected in communities where additional revenues from the Project
could be redistributed to Hamlets to accommodate localized increases to infrastructure and public
services.
As a result of potential increased employment for local communities if the Project were allowed to
proceed, AREVA noted that a direct result would be an overall decrease in the demand for social
services. However, AREVA noted that it was not able to provide a clear relation of changes to reliance
on social services to changes in overall wellbeing due to the lack of data on possible changes from
existing development (see Section 5.10: Individual and Community Wellness).
AREVA projected that populations in the Kivalliq communities would to continue to grow independent
of the proposed project. AREVA detailed that schools in the Kivalliq communities were considered to
be already near capacity, with the exception of Repulse Bay (Naujaat) which is over capacity, and that
demand for education services would continue to increase. However, AREVA also stated the difficulty
211
in its ability to judge the educational situation in 2017 and 2021. As a result of potential additional
employment opportunities from the Project, AREVA also projected that there would be increased
demand for educational opportunities, increased educational achievement, and labour force capacity.
The Proponent anticipated that policing services would increase as a result of population growth,
changes in public activity, increased incomes, and drugs and associated criminal activity. The
Proponent noted that crime in the Kivalliq is on the rise and therefore demand for policing would
depend on the incidence of crime that may not be attributed to the Project. However, AREVA
projected that the largest potential increases to police services as a result of the Project would be in
Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet as a result of population growth. AREVA identified that there is a
potential for increases to policing costs and indicated that this would need to be addressed by the
planning by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Related to Housing, AREVA predicted in its FEIS that due to population growth, the Project would
increase the demand on private and social housing. The Proponent found that increased employment
incomes have some potential to increase the demand for social housing. To the extent that the
increased demand for social housing cannot be met, overcrowding can result, which may result in
individuals choosing to purchase private housing. AREVA noted that this scenario would reduce
overcrowding and improve overall wellbeing for family members remaining and those moving out.
AREVA noted that potential Project effects on housing would most likely occur in Baker Lake and
Rankin Inlet, and possibly in Arviat. The Proponent constructed three potential scenarios for its
impact assessment and provided the results of the scenarios in graph and table format:
 Low growth in demand — In this scenario, AREVA projected the potential impacts if demand
for social housing would grow at the same rate as the population. In relation to the Project,
the Proponent assumed that in-migration into Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake from other
Kivalliq communities could represent 5% of the Project’s local required construction and
operations work force, and projected that 50% of the migrant population would seek social
housing, resulting in a total of 20 additional households. AREVA concluded that in this
scenario, there would be no net increase in the demand at the regional level.
 Medium growth in demand — In this scenario, AREVA projected that demand for social
housing would grow at the same rate as the population; that 50% of migrants would come
from Kivalliq communities (56 households); that 75% would seek social housing (42
households); and that 75% of those seeking social housing would have either left social
housing or would be on wait lists for housing in their home communities (31 households).
The Proponent predicted that there would be a net increase in the demand for social housing
at the regional level.
 High Demand Scenario — In this scenario, AREVA projected that demand for social housing
would grow at the same rate as the population; that 75% of migrants would come from
Kivalliq communities (84 households); that 100% would seek social housing (84 households);
and that only 50% of those seeking social housing would have either left social housing or
left waiting lists for housing in their home communities (42 households). AREVA predicted
that in migration to Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake would represent 15% of the required local
construction and operations work force (for a total of 30% for both communities). The
Proponent noted that it assumed that in this scenario 100% of migrant families would seek
social housing and that 50% of those would have either left social housing or left waiting lists
in their home communities.
212
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, AREVA summarized its position on housing by
noting that that “[t]here’s no predicted significant effect on housing due to the project, and, therefore,
there is no required mitigation.”594
The Proponent noted that it recognizes that the Project could result in some short term issues with the
Hamlet hiring and retaining municipal service workers. AREVA concluded that insofar as demand
could be met by the GN and Hamlet governments, the long-term benefits for people would be
positive, but where demand cannot be met, the effects would be negative, particularly for those most
vulnerable in society. The GN further noted that government budgets would experience negative
impacts due to increase costs in the short term; however AREVA added that increased revenues from
the Project would be expected to enable governments to meet the obligations to provide services in
response to new demands, discussed further in Section 4.12: Governance and Leadership.
5.11.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) requested additional details on how AREVA would work with Baker Lake and
Rankin Inlet to ensure the provision of sufficient infrastructure and community services that would be
required as a result of the Project. In addition, NTI/KIA noted that AREVA did not provide any
indication on the types and condition of infrastructure and services provided in the communities.
NTI/KIA identified a list of services that would require an impact assessment and further
recommended that AREVA provide a discussion on the potential cumulative effects on the existing
community infrastructure and services. In its response to written submissions, AREVA referenced the
FEIS wherein it generally concluded that the Project would not cause significant negative effects on
public infrastructure and services, but an overall positive effect over the long term as the GN would
have increased revenue from the Project to respond to people’s changing needs. AREVA further noted
that it was difficult to make a firm conclusion as relates to potential Project effects on public
infrastructure and services due to multiple factors including the uncertainty surrounding whether
‘unusual population growth’ would occur as a result of the Project and that if ‘unusual population
growth’ did occur, it would be in the ‘far future’.595
NTI/KIA noted that AREVA did not identify the level of potential impacts to community members not
employed by the Project, or any proposed mitigation for impacts to these community members as a
result of increased demand for services. In its response to final written submissions, AREVA clarified
that the projections regarding higher demand for increased services was specific to increased
disposable incomes, and community members not employed by the Project would not be expected to
generate higher demand for services that are paid for.
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) commented on child and Elder
care as discussed in the FEIS; however, the GN-Department of Family Services requested additional
detail regarding AREVA’s proposed community contribution plan, and how it would manage priorities
identified by the community. The GN noted that it “was supportive of the initiatives proposed by the
594
595
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 462, lines 8-10.
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-406.
213
Proponent to address community priorities” and provided recommendations regarding childcare
facilities, Elder day programs, and respite and/or residential resources for Elders.596 AREVA’s response
to final written submissions noted the company’s history of supporting the communities in which it
worked, that it had proposed within the FEIS financial and in-kind contributions throughout the
Project, and that the Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement (IIBA) would be the platform for benefits to Inuit
to be described and negotiated. AREVA noted that it had discussed financial and in-kind contribution
throughout the Project in Volume 9 Section 6.3.7. During the Final Hearing the GN noted that it
agreed with AREVA’s proposed updates to the Community Involvement Plan, which would include an
additional section on community investments.597 The Hamlet of Baker Lake presented the following
statement in reference to AREVA noting the IIBA as a mechanism to offset negative impacts:
The Inuit Impact Benefits Agreement will be the primary vehicle for the project impact and
mitigation and benefit enhancement of Inuit. The Baker Lake Hamlet Council fully recognizes
the obligations and need for an Inuit Impact Benefits Agreement, and fully supports the
commitments in the agreement in principle. However, the Hamlet Council does not believe the
Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement is sufficient as a vehicle to fully address all social, economic,
and infrastructure impacts on Baker Lake and its residents. The present process does not allow
for a formal involvement by the community to deal with impacts that a mine has had on a
community like Baker Lake. The Hamlet Council believes that AREVA must address these
commitments under the final environmental impact statement and Hamlet socio-economic
infrastructure concerns directly with the community in collaboration with Kivalliq Inuit
Association and other agencies. With the existing gold mine, a development partnership
agreement was reached between the Government of Nunavut and Cumberland Resources and
was later adopted by the Agnico Eagle Mines Limited. In this process, the company believed, at
the time, that the development partnership agreement was a vehicle to meet its final
environmental impact statement commitments for consultation, participation, and
partnerships to maximize net benefit…In the end, very little of any of the benefits agreed upon
by all parties trickled down to the community level. The Hamlet Council continues to struggle
with forced growth and the demands made to it by its residents.598
Within its final written submission, the GN also commented on the need for improved employee
access to housing. The GN stated that it is working to address Nunavut’s housing crisis, anticipates
that due to other projects operating in the region the demand could be cumulative, yet agrees with
AREVA’s conclusion that private home ownership may be a limited option in Nunavut. The GN
provided additional detail on the current rent structure by noting that “the new public housing rent
scale works on a progressive payment system. This means that higher rates are applied to higher
segments of income” and is based on the two primary tenants to assess rent scale increases with “the
maximum rent calculations are now standard across Nunavut, and based on the average staff housing
596
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-191.
B. MacIsaac, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p.
1754, lines 1-9.
598
S. Arngna’naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015,
pp.1231-1232, lines 3-26 and 1-25.
597
214
rent in a given community.”599 The GN acknowledged AREVA’s discussion in the FEIS regarding the
potential for improved economic security and increased employment income to result in a positive
Project effect and the potential for workers to purchase private housing. However, the GN noted that
such results have not been observed in the Northwest Territories in response to the diamond mines.600
The GN recommended that AREVA optimize operations by promoting employee wellbeing and
advancements within the company as well as improving housing options in coordination with the
Nunavut Housing Corporation and other interested groups. The GN also recommended that in
partnership with the Nunavut Housing Corporation, AREVA develop and deliver a voluntary survey for
its Nunavut employees regarding housing situations. In addition, the GN recommended that AREVA
provide financial literacy, planning and personal budgeting. AREVA agreed to the GN’s proposed term
and condition, which was noted by the GN during the Final Hearing.601
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake requested clarification on how the GN and AREVA
intended to involve the community’s housing association. The GN responded that discussions with
AREVA had been focused on developing financial literacy training for AREVA employees.602 As a result
of questioning by NTI and the Hamlet of Baker Lake, as well as NIRB staff requesting additional
information on AREVA’s commitments considering the context of housing in Nunavut, AREVA noted
that it would expect to provide a 14 room staff house in Baker Lake for community-relations and
rotational workers similar to that currently maintained by Agnico Eagle Mines Limited. However,
AREVA noted that it would only “provide comfortable housing to rotational Kivalliq workers when
they’re at the mine site where [AREVA is] providing the work opportunities” but would not provide
housing for workers in their home community. 603 AREVA restated its conclusion that they would not
provide social housing in the Kivalliq communities as it had concluded that significant in-migration or
unusual population growth would not be expected or considered likely as a result of the Project.
AREVA further reiterated that it had proposed to monitor housing, pending Project approval.604
Within its final written submission, the GN also discussed the potential Project impact on GN Health
Services, which is further discussed in Section 5.13: Health and Safety.
5.11.3
Views of the Board
The Board acknowledges that AREVA’s impact assessment resulted in positive impacts where the GN
and Hamlet would be able to meet increased demand for services in the community, and notably
through planning and additional revenues received. The Board also acknowledges evidence from the
GN that if tax revenues were received from the Kiggavik project, that such revenues would go into
general revenue and may not be used to offset impacts specifically from the Project. In addition, the
Hamlet of Baker Lake noted that as a result of past experience, it does not believe that the Inuit
599
B. MacIsaac, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1220, lines 1-16.
600
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 11-9.
601
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 766,
lines 17-23.
602
L. Kamermans, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p.
794, lines 1-11.
603
D. Martins, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 7, 2015, pp. 941-942, lines 11-26 and 1-6.
604
D. Martins, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 7, 2015, p. 942, lines 7-26.
215
Impact Benefits Agreement is a sufficient mechanism to fully address the social, economic, and
infrastructure impacts on Baker Lake residents.
5.11.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit community infrastructure and public services having regard to information
presented in any future project proposal.
5.12 Governance and Leadership
5.12.1
Views of the Proponent
In Volume 9, Section 2, of the FEIS, AREVA outlined its use of traditional knowledge collected from
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, consultation information, as well as academic studies and a literature review
to understand and address concerns about governance. AREVA provided a description of the current
social and governmental regimes functioning in the Project area as well as the applicable Acts,
Regulations and licencing requirements required for the Project. AREVA indicated that the activities
and components associated with the Project would be situated and/or operating on a combination of
37 Crown Owned and Inuit Owned Surface and Subsurface lands. AREVA noted that the leases for the
Kiggavik site were assigned prior to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) and that the
associated subsurface leases are administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Canada (AANDC). Subsequent to AREVA’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, there was a
recorded change in ownership of land parcels with surface leases being allocated as Inuit Owned and
Administered Surface Leases.
AREVA defined within Volume 2, Section 2 of its FEIS the policy and regulatory framework pertaining
to the Project, which included the structure, roles, functions and interactions of the Boards and
Institutions developed through the NLCA, including: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), the
Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA), the Nunavut Planning Commission, the NIRB, the Nunavut Water Board,
the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. AREVA identified
the respective uranium policies and associated objectives and guiding principles established by the NTI
and the Government of Nunavut (GN). In Volume 9, Section 6 of its FEIS, AREVA further described the
roles of various parties and GN government departments as well as the specific policies and plans
“that are in place to strengthen community economies, and to support traditional culture and
wellbeing”.605 These programs include hunter assistance programs established under NTI to be
implemented by the Hunters and Trappers Organizations as well as various language based initiatives
and health programs through the GN.
AREVA outlined in Volume 9, Section 6 of its FEIS, the company’s long-term commitment to being a
leader in uranium mining and the sustainable development of economic, social and environmental
performance. AREVA noted that its mission is to “produce high quality uranium concentrate in an
environmentally and socially responsible manner to help meet global energy needs.”606 AREVA’s goal
605
606
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 6-39.
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 6-1.
216
of carrying out responsible management practices are in line with its values of assessing and
accurately reporting on performance activities to both shareholders and stakeholders. In Appendix 1C
to Volume 1, AREVA outlined its ten business principles, which include:
1. Governance
2. Continuous improvement
3. Economic performance
4. Customer satisfaction
5. Innovation
6. Commitment to employee’s need for professional satisfaction
7. Risk management and prevention with regard to staff health and safety
8. Environmental protection
9. Continued dialogue and consensus building
10. Community involvement
In Volume 9, Section 4 of its FEIS, AREVA noted community concerns regarding perceived “oversight
capacity of Nunavut’s institutions of government relative to the Project with regards to the monitoring
of AREVA environmental and socio-economic performance and Government of Nunavut’s (GN)
capacity to respond to shifts in demand for some government services.”607 The Proponent concluded
that Project related increases to demand for public infrastructure and services would affect the GN
and Hamlet governments’ financial and human resource capacity; however, where new demand could
be met through local business, AREVA predicted that increased economic activity would generate
revenues for government.
In Volume 9, Section 6 of its FEIS, AREVA outlined the need for a collaborative monitoring plan that
would seek to clarify roles and responsibilities, to ensure government and industry are clear on their
role in monitoring. AREVA committed to working with government agencies and engaging with the
local community to ensure concerns are taken into account, and where possible, mitigated. This
includes participating in the Kivalliq Socio-Economic Monitoring Committee (Kivalliq SEMC), which
monitors economic, social and cultural development within the Kivalliq region. The Kivalliq SEMC is
organized by the GN, and is comprised of representatives from the hamlets of all Kivalliq communities,
the KIA, GN departments and agencies, the NIRB, AANDC and industry. AREVA noted that its social
monitoring plan would consist of two components: reporting on the socio-economic data collected
internally through its operations monitoring to the Kivalliq SEMC, KIA and the NIRB; and collaborative
monitoring in government initiatives to monitor socio-economic conditions, trends and outcomes
within the Kivalliq region.
AREVA identified issues that arose in identifying potential socio-economic effects that could result
from the Project, and particularly in determining the potential significance and scope of a predicted
impact (e.g., the number of potentially affected people). Consequently, AREVA proposed a monitoring
607
FEIS, Volume 9, p. 4-3.
217
program based on concerns presented by community members and governments regarding the
relationship between the Project, community economic and social development, and culture. AREVA
identified the following nine (9) issues of potential interest to be included in AREVA’s socio-economic
monitoring of the Project:

uptake of Project employment, contracting and training opportunities;

personal job satisfaction and lifestyle adjustments of AREVA employees;

effectiveness work force training and broader education and training initiatives;

labour markets in communities;

in and out migration levels, and consequent effects;

use of Inuktitut and traditional practices, values and knowledge;

physical and mental health;

poor personal choices with regard to use of increased income, and consequent outcomes;

on components of community wellbeing, including, but not limited to, the use of controlled
substances; and

pressures on physical and social infrastructure, specifically housing and policing.
AREVA noted that the data it collected would comprise its information management system, which it
would use to provide data on Project inputs and outputs. AREVA further noted that the data it collects
could be used to understand some of the Project effects at the community level, for example,
migration patterns. AREVA again highlighted the need for collaboration with responsible parties to
collect the data it would need to monitor Project socio-economic effects and the effectiveness of its
mitigation and management measures.
5.12.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submissions, the GN and AANDC noted overall satisfaction with the AREVA’s
two-pronged approach to socio-economic monitoring: operations monitoring and collaborative
monitoring. Both the GN and AANDC recommended in the final written submission that, in addition to
participating in the Kivalliq SEMC, AREVA also collaborate with stakeholders including the GN, KIA,
AANDC and Kivalliq communities to establish a project specific socio-economic working group which
would focus on data collection and analysis and would oversee a project-specific socio-economic
monitoring program. In its response to parties’ final written submissions, AREVA noted that it
understands the value in collaborative monitoring and committed to participate in a regional socioeconomic monitoring committee. Furthermore, AREVA noted that it generally agreed with the terms
and conditions recommended by both the GN and AANDC regarding its potential involvement in both
the Kivalliq SEMC and the development of a socio-economic monitoring working group and a Kiggavik
socio-economic monitoring program to meet project specific requirements. AREVA disagreed with the
above noted parties’ recommendation that the socio-economic monitoring working group submit a
Terms of Reference to the NIRB within six (6) months of any issuance of a Project Certificate and
proposed that it be submitted prior to the completion of licensing. During its technical presentation at
the Final Hearing, the GN noted that it was satisfied with AREVA’s acknowledgment of the need for a
regional and project-specific socio-economic monitoring committee and its commitment to the GN’s
218
three recommended terms and conditions, pending Project approval.608 During its technical
presentation at the Final Hearing, AANDC also noted that it was satisfied with AREVA’s response.609
AANDC further commented in its final written submission that the description of residual Project
effects contained within the FEIS was not robust, and requested that AREVA provide more rationale
for the mitigation and/or enhancement measure identified for each effect. In its response to written
submissions, AREVA clarified that the sections AANDC was commenting on within the FEIS were
intended to highlight certain elements of the conclusions but simplified to reduce repeat
discussions.610 During the Final Hearing, AANDC did not specifically note this as outstanding issue, but
noted that if the project were allowed to proceed, AANDC requests that socio-economic predictions
from the FEIS be included in the socio-economic monitoring program for this project and that
mitigation and adaptive management be done collaboratively among stakeholders.611
In response to questions from the Hamlet of Baker Lake during the Final Hearing on how the GN
intended to enforce the second principle of its Uranium Policy612 - to ensure the major beneficiaries of
uranium exploration and mining activities are Nunavummiut - the GN referred to its support of
collaborative monitoring through the Kivalliq SEMC and reiterated its support for a Project specific
working group with multiple parties. The GN added that the multiple stakeholders would be
responsible for data collection and collaborative analysis of trends and that the communities would be
represented at the annual Kivalliq SEMC meetings.613
During the Final Hearing, the Hamlet of Baker Lake questioned AANDC on what it believes would be
the potential negative impacts in the event of a temporary or premature closure. Although AANDC
deferred the question to AREVA, it responded that per its mandate it would expect the Proponent to
continue collaboration with the stakeholder groups previously mentioned to mitigate negative impacts
and ensure “the people’s concerns would be taken into consideration.”614 AREVA also noted that if an
effect resulting from a temporary or premature closure would be positive or negative would depend
on the existing conditions, which would include whether there would be another large development
project available to employ Project staff. AREVA added that “a premature or early close would be
worse than a planned close”.615
608
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 760761, lines 23-26 and 1-11.
609
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 861, lines 7-16.
610
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p 2-27 to 2-28.
611
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 864, lines 7-17.
612
Government of Nunavut, Exhibit 19, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015.
613
L. Kamermans, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp.
790-791, lines 1-26 and 1-13.
614
T. Fast, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 884, lines 1-13.
615
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 884-885, lines 19-26
and 1-12.
219
Within her final written submission, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson commented on the need for transparent
monitoring of socio-economic effects and the need for collaborative monitoring initiatives.616
In response to questions from multiple parties regarding its capacity to undertake a leading role in
AREVA’s proposed Hunter Harvest Study, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker
Lake HTO) indicated that it has limited capacity to participate in any monitoring activities.617 The
Baker Lake HTO noted that with regards to whether it had a role in monitoring sections of the allweather access road associated with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project it has handed out passes to
public users of the road and that it “was just so much of a burden on our office with no resources
coming into our office”.618 The Baker Lake HTO further noted that its role in the Hunter Harvest Study
for the Meadowbank Gold Mine is to “provide[s] the contractor like, Agnico contracts out the Hunter
Harvest Study. So the HTO provides information on hunters for the study that uses the land in the
Meadowbank area”.619
5.12.3
Views of the Board
While the Board acknowledges the commitments made by AREVA to collaboratively monitor potential
socio-economic effects, particularly through the Kivalliq Socio-Economic Committee, and that parties
generally did not express any outstanding concerns during the Final Hearing as relates to Governance
and Leadership that are within the Board’s mandate to address, the Board is of the view that there is a
genuine issue of the capacity in the proposed monitoring activities. The Board notes that numerous
responsibilities were placed on the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization. However, during
the Final Hearing, the Board finds that the Baker Lake HTO clearly expressed current and future
limitations in its capacity to undertake such proposed efforts. The Board finds that it difficult to have
confidence in AREVA’s proposed monitoring methods, including the use of a Hunter Harvest Study and
of the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization to monitor the proposed all-season access road,
when the primary organization responsible for undertaking these proposed mitigation plans
apparently lack the capacity and capability to do so.
5.12.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit governance and leadership having regard to information presented in any future
project proposal.
616
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, Registered Intervenor, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015.
W. Bernauer, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1263, lines 2-8.
618
R. Auksawnee, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1289, lines 14-26.
619
R. Auksawnee, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1288, lines 10-18.
617
220
5.13 Health and Safety (including worker and public safety)
5.13.1
Views of the Proponent
AREVA presented its assessment of occupational and public safety in Volumes 9 and 10 of the FEIS.
AREVA’s conclusion in Volume 9 expressed with medium confidence, is that having regard to its
proposed health and safety training and public education, the Project would have significant positive
and long-term effects on worker and public health and safety related to mining, and non-significant
negative effects on public health and safety related to traffic on either of the proposed access road
options.
As discussed in Section 6.2: Accidents and Malfunctions, AREVA analyzed the potential risk to workers
resulting from proposed Project activities and components and categorized these into: mine accidents
and malfunctions; mill accidents and malfunctions; and general accidents and malfunctions. Although
AREVA predicted that the potential risk to workers would predominantly be low or negligible, it
predicted, in addition to those discussed in Section 6.2: Accidents and Malfunctions, that there would
be moderate risk associated with: occupational health and safety accidents; spills outside the Project
footprint; vehicle collisions; workers stranded on the road; falls through the ice; and missing persons.
As further discussed in Section 4.3: Noise and Vibration, AREVA predicted in Volume 4 of its FEIS that
there would be no significant human health effects at any of the sensitive receptors during
construction, operation, and final closure and that the overall predicted noise and vibration levels
would predominantly below the threshold of perception (would not be heard in relation to
background noise) and the Project effects criteria (50 decibels during the day and 45 decibels during
the night). Within Volume 10 of its FEIS, AREVA noted that in the absence of mitigation measures,
presented within its Noise Abatement Plan, noise levels within the mill and mine areas could
potentially result in hearing loss. Consequently, the Proponent committed to undertaking numerous
mitigation measures, including:

Implementing engineered controls for specific pieces of equipment;

Establishing a hearing conservation program to ensure workers are aware of potential
hazards related to noise;

Providing personal hearing protection equipment including ear plugs;

Annually administering hearing tests to at-risk employees; and

Undertaking noise surveys on a schedule basis to monitor noise levels at site.
AREVA predicted that the primary Project risk to public health and safety would be the potential traffic
accidents involving either Project related vehicles or private vehicles on either of the proposed access
roads. AREVA noted that although it would implement best practices, including a code of conduct and
limit Project vehicles on public roads, driving all-terrain vehicles and snow machines would be more
dangerous than larger vehicles including cars and trucks. AREVA proposed a Roads Management Plan
in its FEIS and submitted a Draft Public Access and Monitoring Management Plan as part of its
response to final written submissions. Within these plans, AREVA outlined proposed safety
procedures and requirements of both mine and private/public users and proposed to work in
collaboration with other organizations to further develop and implement these plans. AREVA
221
specifically identified the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, the Hamlet of Baker Lake and
the Government of Nunavut. AREVA concluded that although there would be moderate risk of traffic
accidents, it noted that Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited had reported that mine and public vehicles used
the all-weather access road associated with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project respectfully and
there were no accidents resulting in injury at the time the FEIS was published.
AREVA predicted that although risk can never be 100% mitigated, it can be minimized through the
implementation of best practices and mitigation measures, as well as through compliance with all
applicable legislation. AREVA proposed to implement an Air Quality Plan, Occupational Health and
Safety Plan, Roads Management Plan and Public Access and Monitoring Management Plan, which
would include measures to minimize risks to human health and safety and include:
 Comprehensive worker health and safety plans, training and enforcement (including human
rights training for security staff);
 Use of low sulphur diesel fuel to reduce emissions associated with combustion as well as
enclose and vent fuel tanks appropriately;
 Regular inspection and maintenance of vehicles and transportation infrastructure;
 Ongoing communication in Baker Lake and Chesterfield Inlet regarding road and marine
traffic schedules, respectively, as well as engagement with Baker Lake residents, with regard
to scheduling heavy vehicle traffic near the community to minimize risks and any potential
disturbance effects;
 Promote Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System training, proper hygiene
practices and workplace use of personal protective equipment; and
 Continue the mine visit program to provide opportunities for people to better understand
uranium mining and measures put in place to protect environmental resources and worker
and public health and safety.
AREVA noted in Volume 9, Appendix 9A of the FEIS that there is a health centre in each of the Kivalliq
communities and a hospital, the Kivalliq Health Centre, in Rankin Inlet staffed by nurses and full-time
doctors with specialists regularly flying in. AREVA further noted that each community has medical
evacuation services and that patients would primarily be transferred to Churchill or Winnipeg,
Manitoba. AREVA proposed to have an on-site nurse’s station to act as a first response for workers
health needs while on-site, including physical and mental issues.
5.13.2
Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submissions, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) noted that AREVA’s uncertainty in whether the preferred winter access road
option could support the project resulted in increased uncertainty in the assessment process, and
further noted that the potential impacts of either road alternative were unclear. NTI/KIA, as well as
the Government of Nunavut (GN), requested that AREVA provide clarity on its plans to control and
manage public access on either the proposed winter or all-season access road. The GN further
indicated that there was a lack of information regarding the potential public use of the proposed road
options and requested that AREVA incorporate public usage information reported for the
222
Meadowbank Gold Mine all-season access road to provide estimates for public use of the proposed
roads by all-terrain vehicles (ATV) and snow machines.
In its response to final written submissions, AREVA clarified that the proposed winter access road was
its primary access road option and that the all-season access road was a secondary option if the winter
road proved insufficient in meeting the logistical needs of the Project. Furthermore, AREVA included
in the response to final written submissions a Draft Public Access and Monitoring Management Plan to
detail its proposed measures to control and manage public access on either proposed road option. In
response to the GN’s recommendation, AREVA clarified that the Draft Plan describes preliminary
safety protocols for both access road options to be followed by Project employees and members of
the public. In addition, AREVA predicted that the frequency and duration of non-project use of its
proposed all-season access road would be similar to the all-weather access road associated with the
Meadowbank Gold Mine Project and provided the reported 2013 ATV usage numbers on the
established road as an estimation of potential public use of its proposed all-season access road option.
AREVA further noted that it would expect the frequency of snowmobiles on the proposed winter-road
option to be less due to decreased dependency on established roads or trails.
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff raised concerns regarding potential health and safety impacts
resulting from the proposed all-season access road option and questioned AREVA on the length of
time it expected to use the proposed road alternative. AREVA responded that the operation of the
potential all-season access road would be contingent on being able to cross the Thelon River, which
would be impeded during the spring break up and fall freeze up, and that its effects assessment of the
all-season access road looked at year round use irrespective of the spring and fall seasons.620 In
response to the NIRB staff requesting clarification on parties’ responsibility in responding to accidents,
AREVA noted that it would respond to an emergency on either of its two proposed access road
options, or involving a mine vehicle or a member of the public, which would include transportation of
the injured party to the most appropriate facility. AREVA further clarified that it would not assume
liability for public road uses and that several items pertaining to public safety are included in its Road
Management Plan.621
The NIRB staff further asked Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and
Transport Canada (TC) during the Final Hearing who the responsible party would be for authorizing the
proposed winter access road alternative, recognizing the unique status of authorizations required for
work on a lake that is connected to the sea. AANDC responded that it would issue a land-use
authorization for activities such as ice roads in Nunavut and concurred with the NIRB staff that the
Nunavut Water Board would likely have jurisdiction with regards to the potential withdrawal of
water.622 In follow-up to this questioning, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita) asked AANDC
what impacts it had noted related to pollution, safety and melting with relation to ice roads across
620
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 602, lines 11-21.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 603-606, lines 19-26,
1-6, 23-26, 1-13, 26 and 1-4.
622
J. Neary, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 898, lines 15-25.
621
223
Canada.623 AANDC clarified that it only authorized ice roads in Nunavut, and further clarified that
portions of the proposed winter and all-season access road alternatives would cross Commissioner’s
land, Inuit Owned Land, and Crown land. AANDC explained that pursuant to territorial land-use
regulations, the proposed access roads would require multiple authorizations, including an AANDC
land-use permit and KIA authorizations, depending on the land tenure the road was constructed on.
AANDC further noted that it and the KIA would be responsible for enforcing those portions of the
roads that fall under their respective mandates and that the two parties would collaborate to ensure
the conditions and authorizations would be consistent along the entire route. AANDC further noted
that winter roads have operated successfully in the north and that companies are responsible for
cleaning up any resulting spills and immediately reporting any incidents that occur. AANDC added that
“based on the nature and severity of the spill, the inspectors of all agencies [would] determine the
appropriate inspection schedule to ensure the cleanup has been completed”.624
The NIRB Board further asked AANDC to clarify its responsibility in terms of inspection of the access
road. AANDC responded that it is responsible for regulating access roads to projects and not public
roads. AANDC added that if the access roads would be used by members of the public, it would
incorporate conditions based on the NIRB recommendations into its permit. AANDC further stated
that the frequency of inspections would be determined with the Proponent and typically occur during
the seasonal start-up and nearing the close of a winter road. AANDC added that monitoring activities
would include testing the thickness of the ice to ensure safe passage, assessing the Proponent’s
compliance with its permit, and ensuring no safety issues.625
One community representative from Whale Cove noted to AREVA “using the cable ferry during the
springtime, the currents are very, very strong, and they weaken down in the fall time. What do you
have planned if something should happen in springtime when the currents are very strong”.626 AREVA
responded that it would choose its transport on the proposed all-season access road when it would be
safe to do so.627
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA noted that the stationary power generators and the
underground mine ventilation, both “significant air emission sources”, were noted included in AREVA’s
stationary source monitoring program and made multiple recommendations regarding a monitoring
program for these sources.628 Within its response to parties’ final submissions, AREVA agreed or
agreed in principle with most of the recommendations, or made reference to where it believed an
issue was addressed in the FEIS and noted that source testing of the generators would not be required
623
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6,
2015, p. 899, lines 2-10.
624
S. Traynor, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp. 1794-1796, lines 11-26, 1-26 and 1-21.
625
S. Traynor, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 11, 2015, pp. 1805-1806, lines 8-26 and 1-12.
626
P. Kabloona, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1651, lines 411.
627
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1651, lines 12-22.
628
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, pp. 11-12.
224
due to design features and an operation and maintenance program.629 During the Final Hearing, the
KIA noted most of its issues relating to air quality were resolved and noted that through discussions
after AREVA’s response to final written submissions, it had agreed to the testing of the waste
incinerator as the KIA requested. The KIA noted that with regards to underground mine ventilation, its
concern is partially resolved by AREVA’s commitment to use its Occupational Health and Safety
Monitoring results for workers to estimate underground mine emissions. The KIA believed that its
concerns would be resolved ‘relatively easily’.630
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA indicated that the Proponent’s assessment was lacking
in information regarding potential psychological health issues of workers and made multiple
recommendations, including that AREVA incorporate psychological health as a separate assessment
category into its health and safety risk assessment, and to better integrate workplace psychological
health and safety into its Health and Safety plans. NTI/KIA further recommended that all Project
supervisors be trained in Mental Health First Aid and asked for clarification on the qualification for
health personnel.631 Within its response to final written submissions, AREVA clarified that while it had
not distinguished “psychological health” from other types of health conditions within its policies its
overall intention is to provide a healthy and safe work place, which includes psychological health.
AREVA noted that it would comply with territorial and federal regulations regarding worker health and
safety and further committed to occupational health and safety management systems in accordance
with the Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems-Requirements 18001 Standard, which
includes the consideration of psychological health in the work place.
During the Final Hearing, the KIA further discussed mental health and recommended that AREVA place
more emphasis on mental health and expand its references to mental health and safety in all of its
safety documentation and policies.632 In response to this recommendation, the GN clarified that
mental health is regulated by the GN-Department of Health and not under the NIRB’s jurisdiction.633
The GN further clarified in response to NTI that while it currently provides mental health services in
every community, it is the Proponent’s responsibility to provide on-site health services.634
Further to addressing potential gaps within AREVA’s health polices, NTI/KIA recommended that the
Proponent actively partner with the GN and affected local communities to develop a peer support
system to address mental health related issues of community members and mine site workers. In its
response to written submissions, AREVA reiterated that it expects the Project to have a net positive
effect on health and mental health. AREVA noted that it has not explicitly committed to intervention
in community level peer support training, but has committed to establishing numerous social
629
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-327 – 2-328.
T. van der Vooren, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015,
pp. 655 - 656, lines 3-26 and 1-25.
631
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, p. 28.
632
A. Sexton, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 683,
lines 8-21.
633
B. Armstrong, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp.
739-740, lines 11-26 and 1-2.
634
T. Cousins, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 783,
lines 10-22.
630
225
management planning measures to assist workers and communities on health related challenges.
These include: identifying and training peer counselors; implementing a culturally appropriate
employee and family assistance program; promoting awareness of social health issues; providing
financial and in kind contributions to Kivalliq communities in response to community priorities; and
negotiating an Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement according to priority needs in Kivalliq region.
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA also encouraged AREVA to improve its health
surveillance to address concerns related to communicable diseases, including pre-placement health
assessment based on evaluation of past and present illness and identification of potential need for
workforce accommodation. In its response to written submissions, AREVA responded that its health
surveillance system presently considers past and present illness in the context of employee fitness and
potential need for accommodation, as well as the importance of providing a healthy workplace.
AREVA emphasized that a healthy workforce includes mental health.
The GN noted in its final written submission that it disagreed with AREVA’s conclusion in its FEIS that
the Project would have a significant and positive impact on community health. The GN further noted
that the potential cumulative impact of the Project, in conjunction with other mining projects in the
area, on the GN health services could add an additional 60 emergency cases per year. The GN
predicted that this would represent a negative effect, contrary to the Proponent’s FEIS prediction.
AREVA agreed to the GN’s recommendation that AREVA formally commit to establishing a mutual aid
agreement with the GN to address pressures on local health care services and would include the
management of emergency referrals, potential use of the GN’s contracted medevac aircraft, preemployment medical exams as well as information sharing and communication protocols. During the
Final Hearing, NTI asked the GN if this mutual agreement would include the provision of mental health
services.635 In response, the GN discussed the future agreement and explained that AREVA had
proposed to provide a basic level of care and where its on-site health centre would be unable to
provide treatment the patient would be referred to a hospital. The GN noted that while a mutual aid
agreement had not been made at the time of the Final Hearing, there was potential for the provision
of on-site mental health services to be included in such an agreement. The GN further referenced
some of the mental-health related programming proposed by AREVA, including the Employee and
Family Assistance Program. 636
Within its final written submission, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission noted that AREVA’s
assessment of occupational performance (including worker fatigue and safety culture policy and
performance) and corresponding Occupational Health and Safety Plan presented in the FEIS was
adequate.
As discussed further in Section 4.3: Noise and Vibration, Health Canada noted within its final written
submission that AREVA did not provide sufficient contextual information to support human perception
of sound in Table 4.8-5, in Volume 4 of the FEIS, and that the results presented could be misleading.
In its response to written submissions, AREVA clarified that the referenced Table was intended to be a
635
H. Uniuqsaraq, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6,
2015, p. 782, lines 4-10.
636
T. Cousins, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 782783, lines 15-26 and 1-22.
226
general indicator of perceptibility and that it would be used in conjunction with the percentage of
highly annoyed criteria presented in Table 4.8-3 to form the basis of assessment of magnitude of the
effects of noise. AREVA added that this approach is consistent with other noise impact assessments of
similar scale in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and other jurisdictions.
In response to Transport Canada’s recommendation made within its final written submission regarding
worker certification to handle dangerous goods, AREVA agreed that personnel responsible for
handling and/or transporting dangerous good be adequately trained and hold a certificate in
accordance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff asked AREVA to clarify the mechanisms it has in place at its
uranium mining and milling operations in Saskatchewan to prevent access by people and wildlife to its
tailings containment facilities and at the location of effluent discharge into the environment.637 AREVA
responded that due to limited access to its sites, its controls consist of a security gate and berms
around the tailings storage facilities (pits).638
The NIRB staff further asked AREVA if it had identified “any potential for adverse impacts to drinking
water quality in Baker Lake from the proposed seasonal winter road construction and operation”.639
AREVA responded that it had “not specifically addressed impacts to water quality at Baker Lake related
… to the road.”640
5.13.3
Views of the Board
The Board notes that AREVA predicted that the primary Project related risk to public health and safety
would be the potential for traffic accidents on either of the proposed access road options. However,
the Board agrees with parties that there was a lack of information related to the proposed plans to
control and manage the access road. While the Board acknowledges and appreciates that AREVA
provided a Draft Public Access and Monitoring Management Plan as part of its response to final
written submissions, the NIRB found a lack of certainty with regards to emergency situations involving
public road users. Furthermore, the Board finds that there was insufficient consideration of potential
impacts resulting from the proposed winter access road option where the road would overlap with
existing community uses of the lake during the winter months. The Board finds there was a lack of
clarity, and resulting uncertainty, related to what party(ies) would be responsible for assuming liability
of public road use, particularly in the event of an accident, and for ensuring all compliance of all terms
and conditions through regular inspections.
The Board appreciates the comments by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) within the final written submissions and during the Final Hearing with regards to
mental health issues and acknowledges that the consideration of mental health issues within AREVA’s
proposed plans and policies. Furthermore, the NIRB acknowledges the Government of Nunavut Department of Health’s mandate with regards to mental health issues. While the Board appreciates
NTI/KIA’s recommendation that AREVA actively collaborate with the GN and local communities to
637
R. Barry, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 611, lines 22-26.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 612, lines 2-17.
639
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 613, lines 12-15.
640
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 614, lines 1-4.
638
227
develop a community level peer support system, the NIRB notes the clarification made by the GN and
the Proponent that the responsibility to provide mental health services at the community level lies
with the GN. The Board further acknowledges the Proponent’s commitment to numerous on-site
social management planning measures.
The Board agrees with the CNSC’s conclusions that AREVA’s assessment of occupational performance
and corresponding Occupational Health and Safety Plan presented in the FEIS was adequate for the
purposes of the environmental assessment process.
5.13.4
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit health and safety having regard to information presented in any future project
proposal.
228
6. OTHER MATTERS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
6.1
Human Health and Risk Assessment
6.1.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA undertook a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) as one of four components of its
integrated Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment in Volume 8, Appendix 8A. AREVA used its
HHRA to assess the potential Project effects from radon-222, total suspended particulates, and
standard pollutant levels at specific human receptor locations, including the community of Baker Lake
and the proposed on-site accommodations camp. AREVA further assessed potential Project effects
on the main dietary country food resources in the Project area, including fish and caribou. AREVA
predicted that there would be no significant human health effects to Nuclear Energy Workers or
members of the public, and no potential for cumulative effects for occupational exposure to radiation
or for public health effects from exposure.
To assess potential Project effects on human health, AREVA analyzed worker and public exposure to
radioactive materials, hazardous substances and Constituents of Potential Concern (COPC) throughout
all Project phases from construction to decommissioning. AREVA’s temporal boundaries for the
assessment of potential Project effects to human health were related to Project activities associated
with the construction, operation, final closure, and post closure phases of the Project. AREVA
calculated that the period of time for all project phases would extend approximately 25 years.
The FEIS noted that individuals are exposed daily to naturally occurring radiation from cosmic and
terrestrial sources as well as radionuclides from air, water, food, and exposure to radon. AREVA
added that while the average normal range of exposure worldwide is approximately one to 13
milliSieverts per year (mSv/y), there are higher background levels in the Project area, and that one
adult could be exposed to an additional one to four mSv/y through the ingestion of one caribou from
the Project area. AREVA noted that individuals are exposed to other COPC through air, water, soil and
food, which include but are not limited to: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum,
selenium, nickel, uranium, and zinc.
AREVA noted that it had incorporated concerns expressed through community consultations and Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit into its assessment of potential Project health effects and consequently undertook
a pathways approach wherein it assessed the various potential pathways, or sources of exposure,
through which humans could potentially be exposed to radiation and other COPCs through inhalation,
consumption and ingestion. AREVA noted that this approach illustrated the interconnectedness of
humans with all aspects of the environment as it used its ecological assessment to inform its health
assessment. AREVA presented the pathways it identified in Figure 1.2-1 of its Ecological and Human
Health Risk Assessment (e.g., the potential consumption of wildlife and fish or inhalation of air
particles that have been impacted by the Project).641
641
FEIS, Volume 8, Appendix 8A, p. 1-3.
229
AREVA calculated the potential effects of source emissions of the studied COPCs on the atmospheric
and aquatic environments through multiple mathematical models and integrated these into its INTAKE
pathways model. Twelve site-specific input data were used (including meteorological data from Baker
Lake, hydrological data, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation data, birds and wildlife data, and ecological
and human dietary survey data) for its model to predict exposures for human and ecological receptors.
AREVA selected the following three categories to represent its human receptors: permanent residents
of the Baker Lake community (adult, children and toddlers); hunters at Judge Sissons Lake that take
wild game back to their families; and Non-NEW workers as the human receptors. The estimated
exposures were then combined with dose limits and toxicological benchmarks selected from Health
Canada (HC), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. AREVA divided its human health assessment into two parts, worker health and
public health, and used the federal Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Nunavut Mine Health and
Safety Act to inform its assessment.
Worker Health
Effects of Hazardous Substances and Constituents of Potential Concern
In Volume 8 of the FEIS, AREVA identified two assessment areas for its assessment on human health
effects of hazardous substances on workers:

Project Footprint: The milling, open pit mining, underground mining, and associated facilities
and activities on-site.

Local Assessment Area (LAA): Workers working within the LAA (25 km2 area around the mine
development area), which includes the Project Footprint above.
AREVA identified the potential effects of the following COPCs on worker health through the Project
phases: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, uranium, and zinc.
AREVA analyzed whether the controls it used at its McClean Lake operation in northern Saskatchewan,
for the COPCs identified above, would be sufficient to keep workplace exposure below the Threshold
Limit Values set to ensure workers do not experience adverse health effects through daily exposure
over a working lifetime. AREVA concluded that with proposed mitigation measures in place, it did not
expect exposures to workplace hazardous substances of COPCs to exceed the Threshold Limit Values
set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Effects of Radioactivity on Worker Health
AREVA noted that it undertook a precautionary approach when assessing the potential Project effects
of radioactivity on worker health and assumed that the likelihood of detrimental effects would be
proportional to the amount of radiation a worker would be exposed to. Pursuant to dose rates set by
the CNSC, AREVA noted that the annual exposure of a Project Nuclear Energy Worker would need to
be less than 20 mSv (50 mSv in a single year or 100 mSv over a five year period), which would take into
account gamma radiation, radon and radon progeny, and long-lived radioactive dust. AREVA noted
that it would operate under the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle and would
continue to incorporate this principle into the design of the Project, which means that it would try to
limit radiation exposure to its workers ALARA and not just to meet the CNSC radiation limits.
AREVA used radiation dose rates from uranium ore mining operations in northern Saskatchewan and
computer modelling to predict that for routine operations, Project workers would generally be
exposed to 0.74 mSv/y if working in the open pits and 5.2 mSv/y if working underground. AREVA
predicted that Nuclear Energy Workers who would also reside in Baker Lake, which as previously
230
noted has higher background levels of naturally occurring radiation than elsewhere in Canada, would
be exposed to an additional dose rate of 0.006 mSv/y. AREVA noted that it expects its Nuclear Energy
Workers to be exposed to doses well below the CNSC dose limit and does not expect any workers to
receive radiation doses higher than the 20 mSv/y limit. Using a joint report from Health Canada,
Statistics Canada, and the Canadian Cancer Society that depicted total cancer rates in Canada, AREVA
noted that a 150 mSv radiation dose would theoretically correspond to a lifetime fatal cancer risk of
0.60%. AREVA used this report to calculate that the average Kiggavik Mill worker over a 20 year
exposure period and open pit worker over a 9 year exposure period would have a potential 0.003%
increased risk of cancer and hereditable effects from radiation exposure.642 AREVA added that it
predicated the average underground Project mine worker with a 3 year exposure period would have a
0.02% increased risk of cancer and hereditable effects.
Public Health
AREVA identified three assessment areas for its assessment on human health for members of the
public:

Project Area: While it did not include the Project Footprint in its effects assessment on human
health as members of the public would not have regular access to the site, AREVA did assess
potential impacts to non- Nuclear Energy Workers who may work and reside part-time onsite. AREVA did not include the potential Dock and Storage Facility as the results of its air
quality assessment indicated that air emissions would result in a minor effect on air quality in
areas of public use.

Local Assessment Area (LAA): AREVA defined the LAA for human health for members of the
public as identical as that for its Atmospheric Environment assessment. As discussed in
Section 4.1: Air Quality, of this Report, the LAA was established as approximately 25
kilometres squared (km2) over the mine development area and a 5 km2 area over the Baker
Lake Dock and Storage Facility.

Regional Assessment Area (RAA): AREVA also defined the RAA for human health for members
of the public as identical as that for the Atmospheric Environment. It defined the RAA as an
area that extends beyond the LAA to encompass a 117 km by 65 km area and would include
the Mine Development Area, the Kiggavik-Sissons haul road, both the winter and all-season
access road options, and the community of Baker Lake.
For its public health assessment, AREVA analyzed the following three general groups of COPC:

Criterial Air Contaminants, including nitrogen and sulphur oxides and particulate matter,
which could have respiratory effects;

Non-radionuclide COPCs (including arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum,
nickel, selenium, uranium, and zinc); and

Uranium-series radionuclides.
The results of AREVA’s HHRA indicated that the maximum concentrations of nitrogen and sulphur
oxides would be within the established health-based limits. AREVA clarified that although it predicted
642
FEIS, Volume 8, Table 6.5-2, p. 6-45.
231
that nitrogen oxide concentrations may rise above World Health Organization criterion at the Kiggavik
camp, these levels would be contingent on specific activities, such as blasting, and expected to be
infrequent, short term and below World Health Organization criterion for healthy adults. AREVA
predicted that although concentrations of fine particulate matter could similarly exceed health based
criterion at the Kiggavik camp for sensitive individuals, the potential for adverse effects for healthy
adults related to fine particulate matters is considered low. AREVA further noted that the predicted
exposure of the public to non-radionuclides is well below national and international limits. Lastly,
AREVA predicted that the incremental radiation dose to the public would be well below HC and CNSC
dose limits of 0.3 mSv and 1 mSv respectively.
Mitigation and Monitoring
AREVA submitted a preliminary Radiation Protection Plan as part of its FEIS to outline its proposed
mitigation measures to “effectively mitigate risks from radiation exposure to workers, the public, and
the environment” through project design, operational practices, and worker awareness.643 AREVA
proposed to undertake radiological and dosimetry monitoring to monitor Project levels of radiation
and to ensure federal standards are met. AREVA stated that it would routinely monitor levels of
gamma radiation, radon/radon progeny, and long-lived radioactive dust at the ‘radiation areas’ - the
Kiggavik Mill, open pit mines, underground mine, and associated facilities - to identify potentially
abnormal conditions as well as to document levels. AREVA noted that it would monitor individual
worker exposure in these areas to radiological components to ensure that actual exposure is in
compliance with all regulatory limits and to maintain doses ALARA. AREVA added that dosimetry
monitoring is required under national regulations including the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. All
workers who access ‘radiation areas’ would undergo dosimetry monitoring, and AREVA noted that it
would utilize the uranium-in-urine method as a monitoring tool. AREVA predicted that workers not
accessing the ‘radiation areas,’ such as those working in the services departments, would receive little
or no incremental doses.
Additional proposed mitigation measures include the following:
 Installation of scrubbers on exhaust stacks to remove particulates, acid mist and excess
sulphur dioxide prior to discharge;
 Design the Kiggavik and Sissons Water Treatment Plant to ensure water emissions meet the
required guidelines;
 Implementation of a Radiation Protection Plan as well as Occupational Medical Surveillance
Management Plan to ensure appropriate bioassay sampling and dosimetry monitoring of
workers onsite;
 Installation of shotcrete in ore drift areas to act as gamma radiation barrier, including using
lead and steel shields to attenuate gamma radiation in mobile equipment and workplace
environment;
 Prevention of radon, and particle migrations or dispersion through control of water, as well
as reduced time spent in areas with high radiation levels; and
643
FEIS, Volume 8, p. 6-45.
232
 Optimized use of heavy equipment, including during blasting operations to minimize
nitrogen oxides and particulate emission during operational activities.
Finally, AREVA noted in the FEIS that although its proposed monitoring plans do not directly address
human health, it had planned to monitor environmental components related to human health, as
identified through its pathway assessment, such as air, water, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. In
addition, AREVA proposed to monitor community feedback through its Community Involvement Plan.
6.1.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA noted that AREVA’s workplace risk assessment was
deficient of information regarding exposure to and potential risk from silica dust, hydrogen sulphide,
ion-exchange resins, asbestos, and other hazardous compounds such as arsenic, cadmium and
cadmium compounds, and sulphur compounds. Within its response to written submissions, AREVA
noted that it would conduct further risk analysis during the licencing stage and that workplace hazards
related to potential exposures to hydrogen sulfide, silica, flocculant, hydrogen sulphide, ion-exchange
resins and other chemicals of concern are currently well managed at existing uranium mines and mills
through best management practices. AREVA added that it had not encountered asbestos in the ore or
waste rock lithologies at the Project site. The KIA noted during the Final Hearing that through
conversations with AREVA, it was confident that AREVA would revise its safety plans and noted that its
concerns were resolved.644
NTI/KIA noted within their final written submission that AREVA did not assess the potential impacts of
risk perception on traditional food consumption patterns and potential health effects. In its response
to written submissions, AREVA noted its commitment to the continued use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
throughout its management, mitigation and monitoring plans and referenced its Community
Involvement Plan. During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the KIA noted that harvesting
and consumption of country foods may decline due to the risk perception of effects on human health
and recommended that AREVA collaborate with responsible parties to balance and manage the risk
perception of effects on human health.645 The KIA further noted its satisfaction with AREVA’s
commitment to work with hunters and increase the database regarding the potential uptake of
uranium, radionuclides and other contaminants.646 AREVA responded that it has continually tried to
understand and respond to people’s perception of risk during the NIRB’s Review process and noted
that it has committed within its Community Involvement Plan to “undertake activities to better
understand risk perception” and would continue its efforts during the project licensing.647 During the
Final Hearing the KIA asked if AREVA would be willing to undertake a “fuller risk perception analysis”
prior to Project commencement to “understand the differences between community perceptions of
644
A. Sexton, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, pp. 683684, lines 22-26 and 1-4.
645
J. Tulugak, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 652,
lines 10-20.
646
A. Sexton, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 684,
lines 11-22.
647
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 580-581, lines 23-26
and 1-17.
233
risk and those of the company”, pending Project approval.648 The Hamlet of Baker Lake noted during
the Final Hearing that “there is a fear that the caribou and fish, which the people are dependent on for
traditional uses, will be disrupted and/or contaminated”.649
In response to questions by the KIA during the Final Hearing on how AREVA intended to use Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and traditional knowledge in developing water monitoring and fish and fish habitat
monitoring, the Proponent responded that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit would be used in a variety of ways,
including to select species for monitoring, and then incorporate any concerns into its human health
risk assessment where necessary.650 The KIA also asked how the Proponent intended to update their
information on traditional knowledge and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit if there is a delay in the project
start date. AREVA noted that it plans to continuously collect Traditional Knowledge and Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit to inform monitoring management plans and ongoing activities.
In response to a question from NTI during the Final Hearing regarding how AREVA intends to facilitate
the transmission of knowledge between Elders and youth, AREVA noted it is committed to providing
any information it collected through its monitoring programs to NTI/KIA and to collaborate with
partners in the region “to find ways that that could possibly be facilitated”.651
The GN noted within its final written submission that although AREVA identified that consumption of
country foods is an important exposure pathway within the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), it
failed to consider exposure through consumption of organ meat (including kidney and liver) and
alternatively focused on the consumption of muscle tissue. The GN explained that organ meats
accumulate metals and radioactivity to a greater degree than muscle tissues and concluded that as a
consequence, health risks from exposure to such organ meat would be expected to be higher than for
those of muscle tissues. The GN requested that AREVA provide estimates of accumulation of
Constituents of Potential Concern (COPs) such as Cadmium, Pb-210 and Po-210 in caribou kidney and
liver and assess how the results could be used to inform the HHRA. Through its response to written
submissions, AREVA generally agreed with the GN’s comments regarding the potential health risks
from intake of organ meats and noted that based on public studies it expects that members of the
Kivalliq communities would consume less overall quantities of organ meats than muscle tissue and
reiterated its commitment to update its risk assessment and work with local hunters to obtain
additional caribou tissues for analysis. In response to questions raised by the GN during the Final
Hearing, AREVA clarified that regarding its commitment to incorporate analysis of caribou tissue into
its HHRA, it planned to integrate collected information during the licencing phase, pending Project
approval.652 During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the GN noted that it was satisfied
with AREVA’s commitment to incorporate the GN’s recommendations with regards to future
monitoring of organ meat.653
648
B. Parlee, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 580,
lined 15-22.
649
S. Arngna’Naaq, Hamlet of Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1226, lines 14-16.
650
P. Bennett, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 291, lines 9-19.
651
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 470, lines 11-19.
652
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 582, lines 12-19.
653
S. Pinksen, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 770,
lines 1-8.
234
During the Final Hearing, the KIA asked AREVA to clarify how it had incorporated Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit into its HHRA and how it planned to manage risk in the future, specifically taking
into account the difference in risk perception between the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Scientific
Knowledge systems.654 AREVA noted that it used scientific data in its calculations and Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit to determine that all aspects of the ecosystem need to be protected to protect
environmental and human health. AREVA noted that one of its key mitigation strategies to manage
risk perception is to educate people on the company’s activities and the associated risk. AREVA
added that this includes ‘filling in the gap’ of the existing Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit knowledge system
with regards to uranium specific information.655 The KIA asked if AREVA would undertake a more
comprehensive risk perception analysis prior to the commencement of the Project to better
understand the communities’ understanding of risk.656 AREVA responded that within its Community
Involvement Plan it committed to undertake activities to better understand risk perception and noted
that it would consider commencing further studies during the licensing process.657
Within its final written submission, the GN noted multiple concerns regarding a lack of detail on the
methodology of AREVA’s Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA). The GN noted that
it was unable to accurately analyze AREVA’s selection of COPC for its HHERA due to insufficient detail
and requested that AREVA provide clarification on its rationale for excluding COPCs such as poly
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), volatile organic compounds (VOC), Thorium decay chain (Thorium-232
and Uranium-235) and other metals from its assessment. Within its response to written submissions,
AREVA noted that it did not specifically consider PAH and VOC because these compounds would not
be produced during the milling process, and consequently anticipated that they would be limited in
quantity and primarily fugitive. AREVA noted its agreement with the GN and that indicated that it
expects that additional metals beyond COPC would be present in effluent, but that it does not expect
any resulting environmental issues and noted that water quality sampling would include a full suite of
analyses. Lastly, AREVA reiterated that due to the low Thorium content present in the Kiggavik ore, it
did not further evaluate the Thorium decay chain in its HHERA.
The GN further commented within its final written submission on the lack of clarity and missing
equations regarding AREVA’s calculations for exposure levels for terrestrial and human receptors in its
Terrestrial Risk Assessment and requested that AREVA clarify its calculations. The GN specifically
noted the lack of information on adjusted exposures for metals, bioavailability and soil ingestion in
intake estimates and requested that AREVA provide a worked example of a specific COPC, with
consideration for dust deposition rate, number of years of operations, soil mixing depths,
bioavailability adjustments, uptake into lichen, and intake by a single ecological receptor. The GN
requested that AREVA provide additional clarification on whether the modelling results in its
Terrestrial Risk Assessment as presented in Volume 8 represented a 25 year extended operations
scenarios rather than a 10 year operational period.
Within its response to parties’ written
submissions, AREVA provided results of its calculation for uranium transfer in the environment to
654
B. Parlee, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 5, 2015, p. 578, lines 5-17.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 579-580, lines 1-26
and 1-13.
656
B. Parlee, KIA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 580, lines 14-22.
657
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 581, lines 1-17.
655
235
caribou and consumption of caribou by a human receptor, and noted that its assessment considered a
25-year extended operations scenario, and that results over the entire simulation period provided
mean uranium intake by caribou in the Regional Assessment Area.658
During the Final Hearing, the KIA commented on uranium specific terminology, such as cadmium,
radionuclides and bioaccumulation, stating that “many people in the Kivalliq communities have very
limited knowledge of some terminology.” Noting that many of these terms do not have Inuktitut
translations, the KIA asked AREVA how it plans to “work in the future to ensure technical terms,
including those that pose human health risk, are communicated clearly to the Kivalliq communities in
Inuktitut?”659 AREVA responded that it had included a glossary of terms within its FEIS as well as a
supplementary English-to-Inuktitut glossary as part of its response to final written submissions in
February, 2015. AREVA committed to ongoing engagement at various Project stages.660 In response
to the KIA further noting that the translators for the Final Hearing were having difficulties with some
of the terminology, AREVA noted that not all of the terms used at the Final Hearing were included
within the glossary.661
In follow-up to the KIA’s questions regarding terminology, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson (Ms. Hughson)
noted that AREVA began community consultation in Baker Lake in 2006 and questioned why there was
still a lack of proper Inuit/English translations for terminology, especially during the Final Hearing for
the Project. Ms. Hughson asked how AREVA had been able to engage with unilingual community
members and those who spoke Inuktitut as their first language.662 AREVA noted that it has been
working to expand its Inuktitut glossary of terms, including the participation with the Inuit Language
Authority and numerous “Uranium 101” presentations within the communities.663 In response to the
NIRB staff questions to the GN regarding efforts of the Inuit Language Authority to develop uranium
specific Inuktitut terminology, the GN noted that pursuant to Nunavut’s Official Languages Act, the GN
has numerous obligations and does not have an estimated time of completion for developing uranium
specific terminology.664 During the Final Hearing, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
noted that it had committed to participating in uranium terminology workshops hosted by the GN.665
Within its final written submission, the CNSC indicated that AREVA had addressed most of the
outstanding issues from previous review phases regarding public health safety and occupational risks
from potential exposure to radiation, criteria air contaminants (CAC) and COPCs, and concluded that
AREVA’s methods and assumptions in the FEIS were appropriate. The CNSC noted that through its
own analysis using the data AREVA presented it concluded that it did not expect significance adverse
658
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, Table GN 21-1, February 13, 2015, p. 2-224.
J. Hart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 478, lines
13-16.
660
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 478, lines 18-26.
661
B. McCallum, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 479, 8-16.
662
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, Registered Intervenor, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015,
p. 523, lines 2-6.
663
D. Martens, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 523, lines 8-23.
664
B. MacIsaac, Government of Nunavut, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1218-1219, lines 19-26 and 1-4.
665
H. Harpell, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 14,
2015, p. 2337, lines 5-9.
659
236
effects to human health from CACs and hazardous substances. The CNSC did note that AREVA did not
include the potential carcinogenic effects of nickel exposure through the inhalation pathway in the
HHRA, however it concluded that this omission would not affect AREVA’s conclusions. With respect to
potential radiological risks, the CNSC concluded that estimated radiation doses for workers and
members of the public, including for CAC and COPC are predicted to be below CNSC’s regulatory dose
limits. Through its response to written submissions, AREVA maintained that it predicted that the
maximum ambient air concentration for nickel compounds would comprise a small fraction of the air
quality criteria, and did commit to updating the risk assessment to include nickel as a carcinogen or
provide a rationale for its exclusion during CNSC licensing, pending Project approval.
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the CNSC noted that “overall, AREVA’s responses
[to final written submissions] were sufficient for [CNSC’s] staff’s purposes”.666 The CNSC repeated its
recommendation that AREVA update its HHRA to include nickel as a carcinogen and further requested
that AREVA report on final sewage and wastewater treatment design options, and that these
recommendations be addressed during licensing. The CNSC further noted that AREVA had agreed to
all of its comments, which predominantly included post-environmental assessment expectations.667,668
In response to questions by NTI, the CNSC clarified that it ensures that radiation doses to members of
the public remain below regulations and also reviews and has funded international studies of potential
effects of radiation doses on workers and the public.669 The CNSC noted that while it has no plans to
undertake studies specific to northern miners,670 a feasibility study that it conducted in northern
Saskatchewan on doses to uranium miners “showed … that the risks are so low that it would be
impossible to see amongst the 24,000 current and future miners any difference in the rates of
cancer,”671 and that “radiation doses to workers in mines are not shown to cause increased cancer or
other health risks.”672 Furthermore, the CNSC clarified that all licensees under the CNSC would be
required to measure and record the doses to the workers to “demonstrate that they are within the
limits and that they are applying this As Low As Reasonably Achievable concept”.673 This data would
be securely held and evaluated by the CNSC and used to evaluate whether the Proponent’s radiation
mitigation measures were functioning properly.
666
H. Harpell, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 951, lines 10-17.
667
H. Harpell, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, pp. 952-953, lines 24-26 and 1-18.
668
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-86 - 2-95.
669
T. Barr, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 972, lines 9-26.
670
T. Barr, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 998, lines 8-10.
671
T. Barr, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 998, lines 9-19.
672
T. Barr, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 1032, lines 18-21.
673
T. Barr, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing Transcript File No. 09MN003 Transcript,
March 7, 2015, p. 1030, lines 4-10.
237
While HC requested within its final written submission that AREVA provide additional information on
how it determined that exposure for a given pathway as presented in Table 7.2.3 of the FEIS would be
of minimal impact, AREVA noted its rationale in its written response for the level of information
included in the Table. AREVA further stated that as other intervenors did not question the inclusion or
exclusion of specific pathways to human receptors, it concluded that its human health risk assessment
remained valid.
Within its final written submission, HC noted that it was satisfied with AREVA’s response to previous
requests for clarification that personal alpha dosimeters would be sufficiently sensitive as a dosimetry
tool with urine samples being tested as a monitoring tool. During the Final Hearing, the youth
representative from Whale Cove similarly questioned AREVA on how it planned to measure radiation
exposure levels, including the timing of any tests, and how exposure would be treated.674 AREVA
responded that it would use a variety of devices to measure radiation and turn it into a dose value,
which it would use to measure how much radiation has been absorbed. AREVA further noted that it
measures its workplaces daily in terms of the exposure rates to workers and workers would be
measured daily through the personal dosimeters they would wear. Lastly, AREVA noted that through
its commitment to the As Low As Reasonable Achievable principle it was not familiar with treatment
practices for radiation exposure as it has never had to use any.675
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff noted that the occupational surveillance program for the
Project only focused on biodosimetry monitoring of workers, specifically regarding the uranium levels
in urine, and questioned how potential exposure to silica and other carcinogens would be addressed
during the life cycle of the Project.676 AREVA responded that there are reasonable industry controls
for most of the potential carcinogens that the employees would encounter and that testing in addition
to a bioassay program related to radiation protection would be undertaken if warranted. AREVA
added that potential contaminants, particularly diesel particulate, would be monitored in the
underground mine.677 In response to questions raised by the NIRB Board, AREVA clarified that the
annual radiological limit for members of the public and workers pursuant to the standards set by the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is one (1) and 20 milliSievert (mSv), respectively. AREVA added
that it expected the actual doses that workers would be exposed to would meet the public limit of one
(1) mSv per year through mitigation measures.678 AREVA further clarified that through its proposed
monitoring of dust and air emissions it would compare actual exposure to standard thresholds to
ensure there would be no negative impacts as a result of long term exposure.679
Within her final written submission, Paula Kigjugalik Hughson noted that she had outstanding
concerns regarding potential health impacts resulting from the Project and recommended that
government, industry, and non-industry stakeholders collaborate to collect baseline studies on human
health that can be used to monitor the Project effects. In its response to final written submissions,
674
V. Siturat, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 10, 2015, p. 1580, lines 7-12.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003, March 10, 2015, pp. 1580-1581, lines 13-26, 1-14.
676
R. Barry, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 609, lines 10-22.
677
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 610, lines 1-21.
678
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 616-617, lines 24-26
and 1-14.
679
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 618, lines 10-26.
675
238
AREVA referred to its public health assessment in the FEIS. In response to a question raised by Ms.
Hughson during the Final Hearing, AREVA noted that during decommissioning most of the material
stays on site and is buried and that some items, including equipment and kitchen facilities, that can be
cleaned up would be repurposed.680
Multiple community members, including those from Repulse Bay (Naujaat), Coral Harbour, and Baker
Lake, questioned the CNSC on the potential health impacts of uranium exposure to workers with one
community representative of Repulse Bay (Naujaat) asking the CNSC “what are other sicknesses
people could get from uranium mines, other than lung cancer?”681 The CNSC responded to these
questions by noting that although lung cancer is the predominant concern for uranium miners, and
there is also risk of developing other types of cancers, it concluded that there is little risk to miners
and that “few negative effects have been observed in surrounding communities” of uranium mines.682
The community representative from Repulse Bay (Naujaat) subsequently asked if Project workers
would have health and life coverage.683 In response, AREVA clarified that all employees would be
entitled to worker’s compensation and life insurance.684 In response to additional questions raised by
the Coral Harbour youth representative about the potential dangers that could occur from exposure to
uranium, the CNSC replied that:
There have been lots of radiation protection measures put into the mines when we realized
that these men were developing lung cancer, and as a consequence, the doses they were
receiving from radon have gone way down, way down to virtually no radon exposure. In fact,
you get more radon exposure from … your basement.685
6.1.3 Views of the Board
With respect to the safety of uranium mining to human health, in particular, AREVA was confident that
the project could be undertaken safely. The CNSC was confident that it could regulate the project
within the confines of its jurisdiction, and that this mining and milling activity could be undertaken
safely. A contrary view, expressed by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit [Makita], represented that
uranium mining could not be undertaken safely. The Board did not find Makita’s evidence in this
respect to be compelling, and rejects it.
The Board appreciates the Proponent’s acknowledgment for the need to “be aware of, anticipate, and
respond to community member’s perception of risks related to the Kiggavik Project,”686 and AREVA’s
680
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 600, lines 10-26.
L. Haqpi, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1945,
lines 7-8.
682
R. Lane, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12,
2015, p. 1945, lines 23-25.
683
L. Haqpi, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1946,
lines 2-8.
684
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, pp. 1946-1947, lines
23-26 and 1-6.
685
R. Lane, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 13,
2015, p. 2181, lines 17-24.
686
FEIS, Volume 3, Appendix 3, p. 6-4.
681
239
commitment to test organ tissues for Contaminants of Potential Concern in addition to organ meat.
However, the Board is of the view that avoidance behaviours associated with perception of risk to
traditional food consumption and land use and potential health effects is a genuine issue. The Board
notes the following concerns expressed during the Final Hearing by a community representative for
Baker Lake with regards to the potential impacts of the Kiggavik Project on the future well-being of the
Kivalliq community members:
We Inuit depend on our land and animals. We will notice when our land and animals are
affected, but will you listen to us when we ask you to stop the project? Will our voices be
heard? I know you will be monitoring and cleaning up after the project, but I’m concerned that
us residents won’t be given the power to stop the project if it becomes too dangerous for our
land, animals, and us Inuit to live here, our only home. We follow our Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
principles, but will you? We will speak for our land and animals, but will you listen to us when
we ask you to stop?
…If our animals are contaminated, we won’t have enough money to buy from the stores.
Because of the rejection of our people, not all people can provide food on their table from the
high prices of food in our stores. That scares me knowing we can’t buy enough food to ear, and
we can’t hunt for food from our own land due to regulations and/or contamination.687
The Board finds these statements reflective of many of the testimonies it heard from the Kivalliq
community members throughout the duration of the Final Hearing and that residents expressed a high
amount of uncertainty regarding the potential Project related risks as associated with uranium mining.
The Board notes that in the Proponent’s Community Involvement Plan, AREVA stated that “there are
generally more public fears related to uranium mining, compared to other minerals, because radiation
is invisible.”688 The Board saw and heard significant gaps in the current understanding of uranium
mining risks and finds it is unclear how future training/education/consultation initiatives would
properly address the limitations in current understanding. The Board acknowledges that AREVA had
undertaken and committed to ongoing initiatives related to capacity building and education within the
Kivalliq region regarding Project activities. However, the Board finds that there exists a significant lack
of a clear communication system in Inuktitut regarding uranium mining and the associated
components, as expressed during the Final Hearing. While the Board notes that AREVA acknowledged
the need to ‘fill in the gap’ of the existing Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit knowledge system, the Board is
unclear as to how this can be undertaken effectively without uranium terminology in Inuktitut.
While the Board acknowledges that the development of appropriate Inuktitut translations of uranium
specific terminology is the responsibility of the Inuit Language Authority and not the responsibility of
the Proponent, the Board finds that basic terminology of components and activities to comprise a
significant part of the foundation for the Kivalliq community members to understand the Project. The
Board finds that the lack of Inuktitut terminology related to uranium mining does not reflect the
values and priorities of the Kivalliq community members, or Nunavut as a whole. The Board further
687
M. Perkison, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1482-1483,
lines 10-21 and 3-9.
688
FEIS, Volume 3, Appendix 3, p. 6-4.
240
notes the uncertainty regarding the future development of such terminology by the Inuit Language
Authority.
While the Board is confident that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) would adequately
assess and monitor the potential for adverse human health risks associated with the Project pursuant
to its mandate, the Board is not certain that the CNSC’s proposed uranium related public education
initiatives within the Kivalliq communities would address the above noted concerns.689
6.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit health and safety having regard to information presented in any future project
proposal.
6.2
Accidents and Malfunctions
6.2.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA assessed the potential for accidents and malfunctions and occurrences which are not a part of
planned or normal operations, as well as the associated risk for each accident and malfunction
scenario, and presented its results in Volume 1, Section 10 and Volume 10 of the FEIS. Within its
Radiation Exposure Risk Assessment, AREVA evaluated the potential radiation exposure for each
potential accident and malfunction scenario discussed in Volume 10, Section 5 of the FEIS and then
presented its assessment on radiation exposure from routine operations in Volume 8 of the FEIS.
AREVA’s Human Health and Risk Assessment analysis, which was used to analyze potential effects
resulting from radiation exposure, is discussed in further detail in Section 6.1: Human Health and Risk
Assessment.
AREVA noted that it would undertake different types of risk assessment depending on the phase of
the Project and the end use of the information generated; these included general hazard identification
and mitigation procedures, business risk models, and Hazard and Operability Studies. For the current
level of Project design, AREVA undertook a general hazard identification and mitigation procedures
assessment and identified the major potential risks best mitigated through design and those with
potential negative environmental effects requiring additional assessment. To do so, AREVA first
conducted a Screening Risk Assessment through which it identified the potential accident(s) or
malfunction(s) associated with each Project component and then undertook the following steps:

Assessed the likelihood of an event occurring;

Assessed whether the potential health and safety, radiation exposure and/or environmental
risks would be minor, moderate, major or catastrophic;

Assigned a rating of high, moderate, low or negligible to each predicted risk; and
689
H. Harpell, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1044, lines 7-13.
241

Discussed potential mitigation measures to reduce each risk rating.690
AREVA categorized potential topics and risk scenarios into: mine accidents and malfunctions, mill
accidents and malfunctions, and general accidents and malfunctions; it predicted that the majority of
potential accidents and malfunctions would be low risk or negligible and that only a few would
potentially result in a moderate risk. During the Screening Risk Assessment, AREVA predicted that
there would be a moderate risk, albeit unlikely to occur, resulting from potential spills of fuel, uranium
concentrate/yellowcake and reagents. Based on the results of the Screening Risk Assessment and
feedback received through community consultations, AREVA conducted a detailed Transportation Risk
Assessment.
Transportation Risk Assessment
Within the Transportation Risk Assessment, AREVA assessed the potential risks associated with an
accident during the transportation of yellowcake and hazardous goods (including fuel and reagents)
via truck, barge and/or aircraft. AREVA also evaluated the potential impacts on Aquatic, Terrestrial,
and Human Receptors, which included workers and the public, and analyzed multiple scenarios
involving:
 Rollover or collision of vehicles resulting in release of yellowcake and other chemicals;

Release of yellowcake following an aircraft crash; and

Fuel and/or chemical release during tug or barge transportation.691
To determine the potential severity of each accident scenario, AREVA further calculated the potential
frequency of occurrence, quantity of substance involved, duration and spatial extent of a spill, and the
magnitude of the potential environmental effects for aquatic, terrestrial and human receptors.
Yellowcake Release
AREVA proposes to transport yellowcake from the Kiggavik mill to the airstrip via a short haul road.
AREVA used truck accident statistics from the United States, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and
Saskatchewan, as well as the absence of a water crossing along the proposed haul route, to predict
that there would be negligible risk of a release of yellowcake resulting from a truck accident on site
and no residual environmental effects expected.
AREVA used statistics from Canada and specifically the Territories to calculate the potential frequency
of an aircraft crash and analyzed the potential effects resulting from a crash during takeoff or landing
and during cruising, and then assessed potential impacts to a crash into a lake and/or on land. AREVA
concluded that the potential likelihood of a crash would be low with minor consequences. AREVA
clarified that although it predicted that a spill of yellowcake into a large lake would have moderate
consequences on aquatic life and waterfowl relying on the lake for its nutrient supply, these effects
would be ‘transient in nature’ and locally contained. AREVA further predicted that terrestrial species
(specifically caribou and ground squirrel) would not be at risk following a release of yellowcake on the
land or into a water body. AREVA noted that it expects the environment to fully recover from a spill as
a result of proposed spill response measures. Lastly, AREVA predicted that human receptors would
690
691
FEIS, Volume 10, pp. 3-1 - 3-2.
FEIS, Volume 10, p. 3-4.
242
not be negatively impacted in the event of a spill as it expected people would be exposed to radiation
dose limits well below those set by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Committee and Health Canada.
AREVA did not expect members of the public to encounter uranium concentrate/yellowcake exposure
under routine transportation.
Spill of Fuel and Reagents
AREVA proposes to transport approximately 55,400 tonnes of diesel fuel and 87,337 tonnes of
reagents and supplies to the Kiggavik and Sissons site via road, air and marine transportation
methods.692 AREVA used truck crash statistics and various formulas that took into account the number
of proposed vehicles, length of route and truck load to predict that the frequencies of a spill near
water would be low.
AREVA used ship based accident rates as reported to Transport Canada to calculate that the annual
frequency of a fuel release from a tanker or fuel bunker during marine transport would be
approximately 0.027. AREVA predicted that there would be no long-term exposure of aquatic species
from a fuel spill into a water body due to the nature of diesel fuel interactions with water, the
expected volume and spatial area of a potential spill, and the implementation of proposed spill
response measures and monitoring. AREVA predicted that due to fish behaviour, fish exposure would
be minimal, and following a clean-up, benthic invertebrate populations would recover. AREVA further
assessed the potential contamination of a community’s drinking water following a spill and concluded
that any potential spill would be mitigated prior to reaching the water supply and concluded that
there would be no anticipated residual effects.
Fire and Explosion
AREVA assessed the potential risk from a fuel related fire during ground or marine transportation and
predicted that the potential frequency of a fire and explosion of diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate
would be low. AREVA predicted that if a fuel truck was involved in a fire, the diesel fuel and tires
would result in atmospheric release. AREVA noted that it expected that through the implementation
of proposed mitigation measures it would be able to fully clean up the surrounding environment and
that the burning of fuel oil would predominantly result in short-term effects in close vicinity to the fire.
AREVA concluded that there would be no residual effects resulting from a fire and explosion for this
scenario.
Marine Transportation Risk Assessment
AREVA noted that as a result of multiple potential hazards and high community interest related to
proposed marine transport associated with the Project, it further analyzed the potential risk
associated with its Marine Transportation Plan. AREVA identified the Local and Regional Assessment
Areas for its marine risk assessment to be the same as indicated for its marine environment, discussed
in Section 4.14: Marine Environment, of this Report, which are:
 Local assessment area (LAA) — The marine waters of Chesterfield Inlet and the adjacent
coastal and offshore regions at the mouth of Chesterfield Inlet; this includes the portion of
the shipping route where marine vessels would be transiting to and from the main shipping
routes in Hudson Bay.
692
FEIS, Volume 10, Appendix 10A, p. 3-1 – 3-2.
243
 Regional Assessment Area (RAA) — Includes the proposed shipping route in Hudson Bay
between Churchill and Chesterfield Inlet, and the proposed route through Hudson Bay and
Hudson Strait to the extent of Nunavut Territorial waters. The RAA encompasses a 20
kilometre conservative zone where AREVA predicted the vessels would likely have a
measurable effect on the marine environment and the potential to act cumulatively with
marine activities of other projects. This Zone of Influence is based on its projected area
where marine animals would sense and respond to sounds from vessel activities, as
determined by underwater acoustic modelling.
AREVA identified the following potential moderate risks, resulting from the marine transportation of
fuel, reagents and goods:

Tug/barge grounding in the Chesterfield Narrows (likely resulting from mechanical failure);

Occupational health and safety incidents during anchoring operations in Chesterfield Inlet and
barge docking activities at the Baker Lake dock site;

Damage or sinking of a vessel due to ice; and

Fuel spill in Baker Lake. 693
AREVA noted that with proposed controls, the predicted moderate risks previously noted would be
acceptable. These controls included:

Use of one barge per tug while transiting the Chesterfield Narrows to reduce risk of
grounding;

Measures including mechanical redundancy and implementation of a traffic control program
to reduce potential mechanical failures;

Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment for workers;

Pre-installed anchor systems;

Sailing restricted to the open water season and use of ice class vessels;

Availability of spill kits on board all vessels; and

Preventative ship design including use of double-hulled fuel barges.694
Plans
AREVA developed a Draft preliminary Emergency Response Plan and Draft Spill Contingency Plan for
the Project that outlines its proposed response to various predicted accidents and malfunctions and
monitoring requirements. AREVA noted that its Draft preliminary Emergency Response Plan is
intended to be an overarching guide to inform its emergency response procedures and is intended to
be used in conjunction with other supporting plans and documents, including the Explosive
Management, Marine Transportation, Occupational Health and Safety, Radiation Protection,
Hazardous Materials, and Spill Contingency and Landfarm Management Plans. AREVA noted that it
693
694
FEIS, Volume 10, p. 5-37.
FEIS, Volume 10, 5-37 - 5-38.
244
intends to enter into Mutual Aid Agreements, pending Project approval, with nearby mining
operations that would outline different types of support (whether financial, personnel or
infrastructure based) intended to be utilized when resources external to the Project are required in
the event of an emergency. Part of the Emergency Response Plan would be the establishment of an
Emergency Response Team and training of all employees in formal safety and emergency response
procedures. In addition to emergency response equipment, AREVA’s proposed on-site emergency
facilities would include:

Command and alternate command centre;

Health centre;

Camp on-call centre for after-hour emergencies;

Spill response kit and supplies area; and

Centre for emergency vehicles and equipment.
Within its Draft Spill Contingency Plan, AREVA further outlined specific procedures with regards to
preventing, reducing, and/or eliminating potential spills of hazardous materials. AREVA included a
preliminary list of responsible Agencies it would contact in the event of a spill. In both its Draft
Emergency Response and Spill Contingency Plans, AREVA noted how it had incorporated Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit into its marine transportation assessment and into the development of mitigation
measures, including the use of a marine monitor aboard all vessels.
6.2.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
Within their final written submission, NTI/KIA raised concerns that transportation of yellowcake by
airplane would be precedent setting and could warrant special emergency response requirements,
particularly pertaining to the inaccessible terrain along the flight path and noted that such an incident
could end future air transport of yellowcake and ultimately disrupt mine production. The Athabasca
Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD) also commented on the risks and potential impacts from the
air transport of yellowcake from the mine site to Points North, Saskatchewan and noted that it had no
confidence that AREVA would be able to successfully clean-up a yellowcake spill. In its response to
final written submissions provided by NTI/KIA, AREVA clarified that air transportation of yellowcake is
not unprecedented and noted that activities leading up to and including air transportation of
yellowcake is federally regulated and requires an Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP). AREVA
further noted that special arrangements regarding emergency preparedness would need to be
undertaken pursuant to its Spill Contingency and Landfarm Management Plan and that there are
specific reporting requirements pursuant to regulations. In response to the AD concerns, AREVA
detailed that the transportation of yellowcake would be in accordance with existing regulations and
disagreed with AD’s conclusion that the risk of an aircraft crash carrying yellowcake would be
“critically and irreversibly destructive.”695
A community representative from Whale Cove commented on the concerns raised by the AD
regarding the air transportation of yellowcake and asked AREVA what the projected frequency of air
695
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-37.
245
transportation of yellowcake would be.696 AREVA responded that it expects there to be approximately
355 flights per year between the proposed Kiggavik site and Points North Saskatchewan. The
community member further asked AREVA multiple questions regarding potential crash scenarios
involving accidents occurring during the air transportation of uranium concentrate/yellowcake.697 In
response to a request that AREVA elaborate on its proposed mitigation plan and if AREVA would be
able to respond to such an accident before the material dispersed into a waterbody, AREVA responded
that yellowcake is not soluble, and that consequently the predominant concern would be cleaning up
sediment from the settling of uranium concentrate or the riverbed and for the material to wash
downstream. AREVA noted that its proposed mitigation measures would include the use of dredging
techniques and inflatable tube dams that would disperse the water and hold it back along the river’s
edge to allow access to the sediment at the bottom. AREVA noted its high certainty of the success of
the mitigation measures in cleaning up such a spill and that it would have trained personnel at the
Kiggavik site and Points North. AREVA further noted that it was confident in its current proposed Spill
Response Plan and suggested that as the greatest predicted risk of an airplane crash would be at takeoff or landing, the potential risk of a crash into a river or stream would be minimal.698
The NIRB similarly asked for detail on how AREVA would propose to clean up yellowcake released via
an airplane crash and how long it would expect the resulting negative effects to last. In addition, the
Board asked AREVA to provide clarification regarding its spill modelling.699 AREVA noted that it would
create an ERAP that would detail how it would respond to an accidental release of yellowcake,
timelines for the response, available equipment. Furthermore, AREVA noted that prior to transporting
yellowcake via air it would ensure the ERAP would meet TC regulations.700
The Board also asked AREVA about the projected safety of transferring ore from the Sissons site to the
Mill at the Kiggavik site.701 AREVA responded that ore would be transferred on-site via open-top
trucks and that because the ore is graded at approximately 4% uranium, this method of transport
would not pose a risk. AREVA noted that if the ore would spill during on-site transportation it would
be “easy to identify and … to clean it up”.702 AREVA further noted that it has not experienced any
difficulties transporting higher grade ore at its Saskatchewan mines and that as part of its adaptive
management it would consider further mitigation measures, including the potential use of tarps, as
suggested by a NIRB Board Member.703
NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA model fuel spill dispersal to inform its spill response planning and
made recommendations on mode inputs, including: high risk spill locations; inputs that capture the
range of potential environmental conditions; potential interactions between spills and migratory or
resident marine mammals, birds and/or fishes; and using a range of spill volumes. The Government of
696
P. Kabloona, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1648, lines 2-6.
P. Kabloona, Whale Cove, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1648, lines 1926.
698
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1649-1651, lines 226, 1-5, 15-26 and 1-3.
699
P. Kadlun, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1668, lines 1-6.
700
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1669, lines 8-21.
701
G. Alikut, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1552, lines 10-15.
702
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1553, lines 6-18.
703
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1554, lines 1-15.
697
246
Nunavut (GN) shared concerns with regards to potential impacts to the marine environment,
particularly polar bears, and also recommended that AREVA undertake a risk assessment and spill
modelling for a worst-case fuel spill within the marine environment. In its response to final written
submissions addressing both NTI/KIA and the GN concerns, AREVA committed to undertake fuel
dispersal modelling for a reasonable worst-case spill within the marine environment prior to
transporting fuel for the Project, and to use the results to inform its spill response and preparedness
planning.
In response to the KIA’s inquiry during the Final Hearing as to whether AREVA had used Arctic shipping
data, including past tanker groundings and a spill at Baker Lake, in its modelling to calculate spill
likelihood in the FEIS; AREVA responded that while it had used Arctic shipping data, due to data
limitations it did not consider the information numerically, but did use anecdotal experiences to
inform its management plans. AREVA added that it had used statistical flight and ground
transportation data to calculate the risk potential for its proposed air and ground transportation. 704
The KIA further questioned whether AREVA had compared the potential relative risks between the
three proposed main shipping routes as well as the relative risk of using various barge sizes.705 AREVA
explained that while it has mapped out the three potential shipping routes, it did not undertake a
comparative analysis of potential risk and implied that this would be undertaken in the future during
the final design stage. AREVA similarly answered that while it would consider maneuverability and size
of its barges in more detail during the final design stage, for the purpose of the environmental
assessment it considered lower capacity barges and higher transit frequency.706
AREVA explained in response to clarification questions raised by Makita that it had incorporated spill
related experiences that northern operators have experienced into its analysis, but that the frequency
of occurrences was too small to use numerical data for spill modelling. AREVA also noted that it has
proposed to use booms at lighter locations as a precautionary approach when transferring fuel to
mitigate potential limitations in response time at Chesterfield Island.707
During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, the KIA noted outstanding concern regarding the
high uncertainty regarding the proposed shipping activities (including scheduling and routes) and
noted that the Proponent did not give equal consideration to assessing potential impacts of the three
proposed routes and focused on the proposed Churchill, Manitoba to Chesterfield Inlet route. The KIA
further noted that although AREVA had indicated that it would further analyze the proposed routes
during the licensing phase, it reiterated that the Proponent would need to develop and undertake a
strong monitoring program to counterbalance the lack of environmental assessment on all potential
routes.708 The KIA also noted that AREVA may have underestimated the potential impacts resulting
from a fuel spill, and using the 2012 small fuel spill near Baker Lake as a reference expressed concern
704
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 574-575, lines 23-26
and 1-13.
705
B. Stuart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 575576, lines 15-22 and 5-11.
706
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 575-576, lines 23-26, 1-2,
and 12-20.
707
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 592, lines 4-10.
708
B. Stuart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 677-678,
lines 13-26 and 1-9.
247
that the proposed emergency response would be inadequate. The KIA indicated that AREVA’s
commitment to fuel spill modelling at pinch points and fuel transfer sites, as well as to incorporate the
results of this modelling into its Draft Emergency Response Plan, partially satisFEIS its concern.709
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB staff asked AREVA to clarify whether its proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, specially the use of marine mammal observers, would be feasible with regards
to marine shipping. AREVA responded that it has engaged with other companies and believed its
proposed measures to be “feasible, accomplishable items”. 710
In response to the KIA’s question during the Final Hearing on Transport Canada’s (TC) role in ensuring
safe navigation through the Chesterfield Inlet by project vessels, TC noted that all vessels would need
to abide by TC rules and regulations. TC further noted that the Proponent has “provided some very
good mitigation measures when transiting these narrows. I do understand that navigation in these
narrows is a challenge, and … what measures the Proponent has proposed … which I have looked into
the FEIS, they are very, very good measures, especially with respect to one vessel transiting with
regards to the tide”.711
Multiple community members expressed concern and raised questions regarding the potential for ship
based accidents, accidents resulting from air transport of uranium concentrate/yellowcake and
general on-site spills. Community members from Repulse Bay (Naujaat) and Rankin Inlet noted that
areas throughout the Chesterfield Narrows are quite shallow and expressed concern of potential
barge groundings.712 In response, AREVA noted that it intends to “build special barges specifically for
transporting goods through the narrows safely. So they will be made to handle very shallow waters
and have very good maneuverability with the tug.”713 AREVA further noted that the barges would be
designed to be wide and somewhat long and would be pushed by tugboats through the narrows. The
community member from Rankin Inlet further questioned AREVA on its proposed spill response
measures within the Chesterfield narrows.714 AREVA responded that the barges would be doublehulled and that if an accidental grounding would occur, the release of fuel into the environment would
be reduced. Furthermore, AREVA noted that “every barge [would] also carry spill equipment and
supplies to start a cleanup on their own” with the Baker Lake dock site also being stocked with
supplies.715
During the Final Hearing, the NIRB asked TC to clarify if the shipboard OPEP was designed to address
the lack of Coast Guard presence in Nunavut. TC responded that the shipboard OPEP is
required for vessels, and it is every clear that they should not rely on any outside help or Coast
Guard – especially the Coast Guard equipment or the resources in [the] Arctic. In short, our
709
B. Stuart, Kivalliq Inuit Association, NIRB Final Hearing No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 680-681,
lines 9-26 and 1-5.
710
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 607, lines 12-14.
711
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 874, lines 2-11.
712
M. Tukturdjuk, Repulse Bay (Naujaat), NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p.
1558, lines 8-17.
713
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1559, lines 2-5.
714
T. Irwin, Rankin Inlet, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1606, lines 4-12.
715
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1607, lines 1-5.
248
regulatory regime is based on polluter-pay principle, and it is for the vessel to demonstrate two
shipboard oil pollution prevention plans, the capability to respond to spill. To summarize,
Canadian Coast Guard equipment or resources should not be included as a first response to any
pollution incident.716
During the Final Hearing TC provided information on the role of the Canadian Coast Guard and noted
that it is the lead agency responsible to ensure “an appropriate response to ship-source spills in
Canadian waters through monitoring cleanup actions of polluters and maintaining the government
capacity to respond when [a] polluter is unwilling, unknown, and unable”.717 TC added that the
Canadian Coast Guard collaborates with other parties including TC, the United States Coast Guard and
the Danish Coast Guard during a spill even and regularly conduct joint exercises.718
In response to questions raised by the Hamlet of Baker Lake during the Final Hearing, AREVA clarified
that contacts and protocols in the event of a spill would be identified within its Emergency Response
Plan and noted that it would contact the necessary emergency service and notify the Hamlet of Baker
Lake.719 AREVA indicated that through its Community Involvement Plan it has committed to undertake
activities to better understand risk perception and those efforts would be continued at the licensing
phase and embedded throughout the operation of the Project.720 In response to similar questions
raised by the Baker Lake Hunters and Trapper’s Organization, AREVA clarified that it would conduct
spill response training along the shipping route in Chesterfield Inlet as well as along the proposed
access road.721 AREVA further stated that in its operational history offsite spills rarely occur and noted
that all spills would be responded to immediately and documented and available within its annual
monitoring reports.722
During the Final Hearing, Makita asked AREVA if it had incorporated any of the spills experienced along
the all-weather access road associated with the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project or during fuel
transfer into its calculation of likelihood of spill response.723 Similar to its previous responses, AREVA
noted that it had used the spill experiences anecdotally, but that there was not enough data to
incorporate it into its numerical analysis.724 In response to questions raised by Makita regarding a spill
and the effectiveness of AREVA’s proposed spill response equipment, AREVA noted that it would
716
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 11, 2015, p. 1882, lines 111.
717
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1903, lines
12-16.
718
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1905, lines 18.
719
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 585, lines 8-19.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 558, lines 17-24.
721
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 587, lines 1-8.
722
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 587, lines 14-26.
723
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5,
2015, pp. 588-589, lines 10-19 and 2-6.
724
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 589, lines 7-15.
720
249
utilize absorbent booms during fuel transfers, typically at lightering locations and would implement
additional mitigation during high-risk situations such as high currents.725
Within its final written submission, Environment Canada (EC) further recommended that AREVA
conduct fate and behaviour dispersion modelling for potential large spills of ammonium nitrate into
water and to incorporate the results into its spill contingency planning. Natural Resources Canada
(NRCan) also commented on the need for spill contingency planning in regards to ammonium nitrate.
In its response to the final written submissions, AREVA noted that it, and any applicable contractors,
would be required to develop a spill contingency plan and meet the requirements for the transport,
handling and storage of ammonium nitrate pursuant to NRCan and Transport Canada (TC) regulations.
In response to recommendations by EC within its final written submission, AREVA agreed to
incorporate information presented in the Environmental Emergencies Science Table into any revisions
of its Spill Contingency and Landfarm Management Plan. EC further recommended that the
Proponent undertake environmental sensitivity mapping, particularly in and around nearby water
bodies and water courses that could be affected by a spill, and to document worst-case accidents and
malfunctions scenarios in a manner that was consistent with existing guidelines for all plans. Although
AREVA agreed in its response to EC’s final written submissions that the referenced guidelines were
relevant, it reiterated that its assessment of potential accidents and malfunctions and development of
corresponding management plans used conservative and credible scenarios. In additional response to
EC recommendations, AREVA committed to report any use of mutual aid agreements in an emergency
scenario to agencies responsible for oversight and emergency response.
Within its final written submission, TC noted that due to the absence of an Oil Pollution Emergency
Plan/Oil Pollution Prevention Plan (OPEP/OPPP) in the FEIS, it could not sufficiently review AREVA’s
proposed spill response during transfers between vessels and the Oil Handling Facility. TC
recommended that AREVA submit an OPEP/OPPP for the planned Oil Handling Facility prior to Project
commencement and discussed the importance of AREVA adhering to relevant regulations and
standards. In its response to written submissions, AREVA committed to finalizing the OPEP/OPPP prior
to facility licensing. During the Final Hearing TC clarified the regulations that the Proponent is
required to adhere to,726 including the applicability of the North Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone
Regulations (NORDREG), which is implemented by the Canadian Coast Guard.727 TC also clarified that
AREVA would need to update its Emergency Response Assistance Plan, mandatory for the
transportation of yellowcake pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, and to
incorporate responses concerning the transportation of yellowcake. TC added that AREVA had
addressed its recommendations within its final written submission.728 Within its final written
submission, TC also commented on the transportation of dangerous goods and AREVA’s requirements
under legislation. Within its response to final written submissions, AREVA committed to providing a
725
N. Drake, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, p. 592, lines 4-10.
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 5, 2015, pp. 583-584, lines
21-26 and 1-19.
727
J. Johar, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 697, lines 1126 and 1-15.
728
D. Kirkland, Transport Canada, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 6, 2015, p. 855, lines 926.
726
250
revised Marine Shipping Plan, which would include a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan, prior to
licensing. During its technical presentation at the Final Hearing, TC noted that AREVA had addressed
its recommendations and that it had no outstanding issues.
As previously indicated, the AD had raised multiple concerns through its response to final written
submissions regarding the potential impacts from the air transport of yellowcake over AD land use
areas and made multiple recommendations to AREVA, including that it provide additional detail on the
potential impacts of transportation of yellowcake via air, particularly on areas outside of Wollaston
Lake, and that it reassess the predicted significance of potential Project effects by incorporating the
perspectives of AD land users and harvesters. The AD further recommended that AREVA reconsider
either its proposed route to transfer yellowcake or the method of transportation. Within its response
to final written submissions, AREVA noted that it had selected the two locations (takeoff and landing)
to assess potential air transportation accidents involving yellowcake because these represent the
predominant locations involving aircraft accidents, and noted that in-flight incidents are not as
frequent. AREVA added that its analysis of Wollaston Lake exemplified the other large lakes in the
area and that it had conducted analyses for “a generic small lake to determine the minimum lake
volume and minimum lake area which would experience uranium concentrations exceeding water and
sediment quality guidelines … following an aircraft crash with yellowcake dispersion.”729
A community member from Baker Lake noted concern with potential accidents and malfunctions at
the site and requested clarification from AREVA on how it would be able to safely repair the issue(s)
especially knowing that the Baker Lake area is known to have many blizzards, with some lasting up to
three to four days.730 AREVA responded that it would only undertake work if it could be done safely
and that the Project would be designed to be “very robust and take into consideration the harsh …
climate that [it will] face, and especially in the operation of heavy equipment and things like that
outdoors.”731 The NIRB also discussed the strong winds and lengthy blizzards in the Kivalliq region and
asked AREVA what its plans would be with regards to snow accumulation in the open pits.732 AREVA
responded that during operations it would try to separate any snow within the pits using a loader and
stockpile over the winter months separate from the clean waste rock stockpile. AREVA further noted
that snow that came in contact with ore would be stockpiled on the ore pad. Lastly, AREVA noted that
it would aim to minimize any mixing of snow and rock to increase the stability of the rock.733
Within its final written submission, NTI/KIA noted that a significant issue in many emergency situations
is the lack of communication as a result of equipment incompatibilities and recommended that AREVA
assess the compatibility of its communication systems to mitigate potential issues. In its written
response, AREVA outlined the radio procedures and training it currently conducts at its active mine
site.
729
AREVA Response to Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-37.
D. Ovyuk, Community Member, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1659,
lines 10-20.
731
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1660, lines 2-5.
732
E. Copland, NIRB, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1604, lines 18-22.
733
J. Corman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, pp. 1604-1605, lines 2425 and 1-18.
730
251
NTI/KIA further indicated that AREVA has yet to fully address concerns regarding health risks from
equipment failures and catastrophic events, such as fire, food poisoning, or accommodations failure.
AREVA responded in its response to written submissions that its emergency response would follow
prescribed programs to meet required standards and that team training prioritizes developing skills in
first aid, firefighting, rescue and spill response.
NTI/KIA further recommended that all members of the proposed Emergency Response Team be
trained in Mental Health First Aid. In its response to final written submissions by parties, AREVA noted
that it believes that mental health concerns would be better addressed by nurses or counsellors, or
other on-site personnel rather than the Emergency Response Team.
6.2.3 Views of the Board
The Board notes that concerns were raised by parties including Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and
the Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIW), the Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD), and
community members regarding the potential risks and impacts from the air transport of yellowcake
from the mine site to Points North, Saskatchewan. The Board appreciates that regulatory agencies,
including TC and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, provided details on the legislated
requirements regarding transportation of dangerous goods via different modes of transportation.
The Board acknowledges that the transportation of uranium concentrate (yellowcake) is highly
regulated, and that AREVA predicted that the likelihood of a spill of uranium as a result of an aircraft
crash was extremely low, the environment would fully recover from a spill as a result of proposed
response measures, and that human receptors would not be impacted. However, the Board finds that
there AREVA did not incorporate the perspectives of land users and harvesters into its risk analysis,
and is of the view that avoidance behaviours could arise in the highly unlikely event of an aircraft crash
during transportation of yellowcake. This could impact the well-being or the priorities of residents
both within and outside the Nunavut Settlement Area.
The Board notes that AREVA committed to undertaking fuel dispersal modelling for a reasonable
worst-case spill scenario within the marine environment prior to transporting fuel for the Project as
recommended by the KIA and the Government of Nunavut. However, the Board notes the KIA’s
concerns that AREVA may have underestimated the potential impacts resulting from a potential spill.
The Board acknowledges that the KIA’s concerns were partially resolved during the Final Hearing with
AREVA’s commitment to undertake a ‘strong monitoring program’ including fuel spill modelling at
pinch points and fuel transfer sites. The Board lacks confidence, however, that fuel spills in remote
locations could be rapidly and effectively contained. The Board appreciates TC’s efforts to explain the
spill response regime in Canada, but the Board was not persuaded that northern spill response
capacity would be adequate in all fuel spill scenarios.
6.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board will revisit accidents and malfunctions having regard to information presented in any future
project proposal.
252
6.3
Alternatives Analysis
6.3.1 Views of the Proponent
AREVA’s position was that the only alternative to proceeding with development is Project
abandonment.734 Uranium is an essential element in the production of fuel for nuclear power
reactors. As long as nuclear power is generated in the world using current technology, there will be no
alternative to uranium mining. Although the current world market price for uranium concentrate is
low, AREVA is optimistic that demand in the long term will make the Kiggavik Project economic.
AREVA provided the history of the project within the FEIS,735 noting that the previous owner,
Urangesellschaft Canada Limited (Urangesellschaft), had conducted a feasibility study in 1989, after
which time the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office set up an Environmental
Assessment Review Panel to review the proposal. In July 1990 Urangesellschaft requested that the
Panel delay the public hearings indefinitely as a result of opposition to the development and a
plebiscite in Baker Lake which showed that the majority of the local population was opposed the
Project. In 1993, AREVA (formerly COGEMA Resources Incorporated) acquired the Kiggavik Project
from Urangesellschaft, making it a wholly owned subsidiary of AREVA. Exploration continued at the
site between 1993 and 1997 when a pre-feasibility study was completed which concluded that the
deposits were not economic due to the market conditions at that time, and the Project was put into
care and maintenance from 1998 to 2002. Site clean-up activities were considered with Baker Lake
Elders in 2003 and 2004. AREVA conducted another pre-feasibility study in 2006 and 2007 which was
presented to the Joint Venture partners later that year. AREVA and its Joint Venture Partners elected
to initiate a Feasibility Study and the environmental review process. During its opening submissions,
AREVA acknowledged that “[u]nfortunately, as of today, the market price for uranium concentrate is
below the threshold to advance the Kiggavik project. At this point, we believe the Kiggavik project is a
project for the 2020s and 2030s.”736 During the Final Hearings AREVA noted that
The -- the feasibility of the project is something that we have been discussing around this table
a few times in the last couple weeks, and we've clearly identified that the project isn't feasible
at this time. So we need a -- a higher market price of uranium before we can -- can start this
project. And it's -- we don't have that in the world right now, and we expect we won't until
into the 2020s.737
The FEIS included analyses of alternative means of carrying out the Project components, including
reasons for selection of the Project as the preferred alternative, and the reasons for rejection of other
alternatives. The FEIS focused on the following project elements:

Transportation of uranium concentrate (or more commonly known as yellowcake) from the
Kiggavik site, including a “no road development” option;

The location of the Baker Lake Dock and Storage Facility;
734
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 7.
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 8.
736
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 3, 2015, p. 56, lines 11-15.
737
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 2023, lines 9 - 17.
735
253

The access road from Baker Lake to the Kiggavik site including the winter access road option
and the all-season access road option with routing options and road use after
decommissioning;

Accessing the uranium ore deposit under the northern edge of Andrew Lake;

The marine shipping route, including different marine shipping options for bringing in supplies
to the Kiggavik site via the port of Churchill or via Chesterfield inlet and provide an estimate of
cost variance for these alternate systems. In addition, the evaluation of alternatives shall
include a comparison of the economic and social benefits for marine trans-shipment via
Churchill vs. trans-shipment via Chesterfield Inlet;

Diesel power generation, including solar energy, wind energy, hydro and geothermal energy,
etc.;

Closure and reclamation options;

Mine waste management;

Tailings and waste rock storage alternatives;

Methods for treatment of mill and waste water effluent; and

Methods for mine de-watering.
In considering the Project design and options, AREVA noted its regard to:

The sensitivity of the tundra environment, including permafrost, wind, extreme

temperatures, wildlife, and the extended ice covered season;

Potential effects, both negative and positive, on socio-economics and communities;

Project economics;

Operational flexibility;

Potential for long term liabilities / ease of decommissioning;

Comments, suggestions and concerns from communities and regulators; and

Uncertainty and risk, including climate change.

Comments, concerns, and input from the public have been gathered by AREVA since 2006.
Technical Appendix 2A of the FEIS provided a detailed description of Project alternatives, selection of
preferred options, and identification of options carried forward for full assessment and approval
consideration. Table 2.1-1: Overview of Alternatives, located in Technical Appendix 2A of the FEIS,
outlined the alternatives analysis conducted by AREVA. Power generation, source of freshwater,
effluent treatments, mine waste management, dewatering of Andrew Lake, mining of the Andrew
Lake deposit, the Mill location, mine rock storage, tailings management, TMF design, access from
Baker Lake to the Kiggavik site, the airstrip location, the Baker Lake dock location, yellowcake
shipment, marine transportation routes, and decommissioning and reclamation were all considered.
Of these, only the Baker Lake dock location, access from Baker Lake to the Kiggavik site, TMF design,
mill process, and effluent treatments had secondary options which were fully assessed.
254
As regards the Dock Site alternatives, section 2.16 of the FEIS Tier 3 Technical Appendix 2A states:
In the alternatives assessment, the use of the existing Agnico Eagle dock site was screened out
and not evaluated since there is not enough infrastructure to meet the needs of both AREVA
and Agnico- Eagle. In 2012, Agnico Eagle announced that the Meadowbank mine would close
in 2017, three years earlier than planned. If the Agnico-Eagle dock site is no longer required at
the time of the development of the Kiggavik project, the use of the existing Agnico Eagle dock
site will be strongly considered. This area is already disturbed and will reduce the amount of
new infrastructure required for the Project. The existing Agnico-Eagle dock site is now
considered a secondary option. In the alternatives assessment, dock sites 2 to 4 were
evaluated as a group compared to dock site 1. In the draft EIS documents the number of
potential dock sites ranged from 3 to 5. In order to reduce the number of alternatives
presented in the EIS, dock sites #3 and #4 were removed as options. Dock site #2 was kept as
it was the closest to Baker Lake and provides flexibility in dock site selection. The location of
the dock site will be decided at licensing.
As regards access roads, section 2.15 of the FEIS Tier 3 Technical Appendix 2A states:
The south winter road was deemed to be the preferred option since it is a shorter total
distance and it eliminates the need to cross the Thelon. For the final EIS, the preferred option
is the south winter road and the all-season road remains as a future option in the event that
the winter road cannot meet the needs of the project.
Tier 3 Technical Appendix 2K contains the Winter Road Report, while Tier 3 Technical Appendix 2L
contains the All Season Road Report.
6.3.2 Views and Concerns of Interested Parties
The presentation made by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita) disputed the level of confidence
in AREVA’s prediction that the world price for uranium concentrate would increase.738 Makita referred
to the parent company’s overall financial status, suggesting the potential for AREVA to sell the
development.739 In response, AREVA noted that its graphs could be considered by various
interpretations, are somewhat dated, and could have been more moderated, but presented a forecast
of demand to illustrate the potential need for the project.740 AREVA stated further that it does not
have any intention at this time to sell the Project should it be approved.
Some Community representatives expressed concerns respecting the location of the proposed dock
sites proposed, and the overlap with cultural use of the land. As regards the proposed winter access
road, questions were raised during the Final Hearing respecting the potential effects of heavy traffic
during the winter use season on the safety and convenience of other uses of Baker Lake, and upon the
fish stocks in the lake.
738
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, Exhibit 29, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015.
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1166-1167, lines 21-26 and 1-2.
740
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7, 2015, pp. 1173-1174, lines 1226 and 1-3.
739
255
Within their joint final written submission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit
Association (NTI/KIA) noted that the presentation of two road options reduced clarity and added
uncertainty to the environmental assessment:
The uncertainty in road options reduced clarity and added uncertainty to the assessment
process. How AREVA will control and manage public access on either road system, and the
potential impact of the road options to hunter harvest and distribution, remain unclear. The
assumption that the winter access road option will provide little improvement to winter
harvest access is untested and unsupported. Dust generation and its effects on vegetation and
caribou distribution and health are primary community concerns, and it is unclear whether
dust suppression and monitoring will adequately address these concerns. Terminology
surrounding the cumulative effects assessment is confusing and contradictory.741
6.3.3 Views of the Board
The Board concludes that there is no alternative to the mining of uranium so long as nuclear power
generation occurs using present technology. Uranium mining is necessary for the development of
yellowcake, an essential ingredient in the production of fuel for nuclear reactors and the generation of
electrical power from those reactors.
The Board finds that AREVA’s alternative analysis associated with dewatering of Andrew Lake, mining
of the Andrew Lake deposit, the Mill location, mine rock storage, tailings management, TMF design,
the airstrip location, yellowcake shipment, marine transportation routes, and decommissioning and
reclamation, are all reasonable.
AREVA proposes to export from Canada all of the yellowcake produced from the Kiggavik project, and
there was no evidence presented to the Board which would suggest that the yellowcake from the
Kiggavik Project would be destined for nuclear power generation in Canada.
6.3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Board
The Board does not accept that Project abandonment is the only alternative. Project deferral is an
alternative, for reasons stated in this Report.
Respecting the Baker Lake dock location, the Board recommends that in the event that the Project
should proceed in future, greater attention should be given to community concerns respecting the
dock site location vis-à-vis culturally significant uses of that shoreline. The Board would recommend
location of the dock in a site which minimizes overlap with community uses of shoreline so far as
possible. The Board also recommend that the winter access road option include more definite
descriptions of enforcement safety measures such as speeding, and a more detailed assessment of the
potential for winter road location on Baker Lake to impact fish stocks and thereby negatively influence
winter fishing.
741
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16,
2015, p. 21.
256
In respect of access from Baker Lake to the Kiggavik site, the Board recommends that future project
proposals include as assessment of the potential effects of winter road traffic on fish populations in
Baker Lake, and on Nunavummiut use of Baker Lake in winter for fishing and traditional harvesting.
6.4
Cumulative Effects
6.4.1 Views of the Proponent
In its FEIS, AREVA presented its criteria for determining a potential cumulative effect for inclusion into
the assessment by outlining the following:

The impact assessment identified a project-specific residual impact for a Valued Ecosystemic
Component (VEC) or Valued Socio-Economic Component (VSEC);

The residual impact was likely to act in a cumulative fashion with the environmental effect of
another project; and

There is a reasonable expectation that the project-specific contribution to the cumulative
effect would be substantive, measurable, or discernable in such a way that it would affect the
viability or sustainability of the resources.
To construct the cumulative effects assessment, AREVA defined the potential interaction of up to four
scenarios, noted as cases, between development, activities, and each VEC/VSEC. The cases were
defined as the Base Case of current exploration and mining projects in a defined area, the Project Case
describing Kiggavik project related effects assessment, the Future Case of developments that could
transition to operations in the reasonably foreseeable future, and the Far Future Case of lease or claim
holdings at very early exploration.742 AREVA defined a Project Inclusion List which tabulated the
projects considered for the cumulative effects assessment, the case in which the project would be
categorized, and the VEC/VSEC of potential interaction. 743
Once a potential residual cumulative effect was identified, a cumulative effect which remained after
mitigation measures were applied, AREVA categorized the potential change by direction, magnitude,
duration, geographic extent, frequency and reversibility, or confidence of mitigation measure. AREVA
used these variables to determine a significance level of the potential residual cumulative effect.
Where AREVA had determined the necessity for follow up and compliance, the FEIS also included
proposed monitoring methods to confirm the environmental effect prediction and/or effectiveness of
a recommended project design feature, mitigation measure, environmental protection measure, or
benefit agreement.
AREVA identified potential residual effects for air quality, noise and vibration, surface hydrology and
hydrogeology, water quality, sediment quality, aquatic organisms and fish habitat, fish, terrain, soils,
742
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 58.
Volume 1, Appendix 1E, Attachment A Project Inclusion List, which included projects and activities in Nunavut
and projects and activities in Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba that fall within the
largest RAA boundary.
743
257
vegetation, raptors, migratory birds, marine fish or mammals and archaeology; however also
determined that the residual effects would not have potential to act in a cumulative way.744 AREVA
identified and assessed cumulative effects for air quality, terrestrial wildlife, human health and socioeconomic issues.
AREVA’s assessment of air quality included the potential for cumulative effects causing an increase of
ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels at the dock site due to its proximity of the Meadowbank dock
site and the combined volume of marine shipping traffic and use of heavy equipment at the dock.
In its terrestrial wildlife and habitat assessment, AREVA discussed the potential cumulative effect of
existing local harvesting activities acting in combination with increased hunter access via the optional
all-season access road to increased caribou mortality. In addition, AREVA noted that the Project would
result in a potential cumulative impact for direct and indirect habitat loss, and an overall reduction of
habitat availability for caribou and muskox with localized activities and regional communities. AREVA
noted that it had completed impact assessment modelling for the FEIS using conservative predictions
to provide moderate confidence in the results of the model. The results of the model indicated that
the Project would have little effect on caribou energetics, remove a very small amount of habitat
(0.001% combined ranges and 0.004-0.007% individual ranges), and have no measurable effect on
population projections through to 2040. Therefore, AREVA concluded that the potential cumulative
effect to terrestrial wildlife would be not significant.
AREVA made an additional note that the mitigation of cumulative loss to habitat, as well as
cumulative effects in general, required collaboration with government, management partners, and the
land use planning process. AREVA further noted that management of the resource would be a shared
responsibility with partners, communities, Inuit and Land Claim Organizations as well as the territorial
government. AREVA proposed to work with the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker
Lake HTO) and other caribou stakeholders to manage impacts of the road, establish no-shooting
corridors along the road, and possibly provide support to the Baker Lake HTO to promote Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit principles in the community. AREVA noted that although no monitoring was
proposed in relation to cumulative effects of the proposed winter access road option, if the proposed
all-season access road option would be approved, AREVA proposed that coordinated monitoring
would be considered in collaboration with caribou stakeholders.
AREVA’s discussion in the FEIS regarding socio-economic cumulative effects noted that other mining
projects proposed throughout Nunavut may create very high demands for Inuit labour, generating a
short term deficiency of the Kivalliq region to provide supplies and labour to the mining sector,
limiting potential Project benefits to Inuit where the proponents must meet supply from the south.
This impact was considered to be confined to the short term due to the rapid growth of Nunavut’s
labour force and the potential for youth to participate in employment at the mine. AREVA discussed
the potential for ‘fuller employment’ to result in a long term negative impact on traditional culture,
and suggested that government programs to support traditional culture and ongoing importance
placed on maintaining traditional culture by individuals could mitigate the effects to some extent.
AREVA discussed the potential for multiple mining projects to result in positive cumulative effects on
the economy of Nunavut, although it also acknowledged that eventual closure of the mines could limit
744
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 138.
258
the benefits, but that mine closures could be alleviated by new projects or development of local
businesses. AREVA concluded that the magnitude of the cumulative socio-economic effects was
‘undetermined’ due to a high level of uncertainty related to changes that could occur within Nunavut
over the Project life, mitigation and enhancement measures that could be considered by governments
and other proponents, or the effectiveness of those mitigation and enhancement measures.
6.4.2 Views of Parties
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) expressed the view that the FEIS
“did not assess the potential effects of Project-related shipping on the risk and/or cumulative risk of a
major fuel spill along the marine shipping routes through Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait and Davis Strait.
As a result, the FEIS fails to consider the potential consequences of a major spill on polar bears and
other marine species.”745
Furthermore, the GN “categorically” disagreed with the effects assessment as expressed in the FEIS
relating to caribou:
The proposed Baker Lake to Kiggavik access road may result in changes in the level and
distribution of wildlife harvesting in the region as a result of improved public access to hunting
areas. Of particular concern is the potential for an increase in caribou harvest. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) assesses the residual cumulative impact on risk of
caribou mortality resulting from the Project’s access roads as “not significant” with a
confidence rating of “moderate”. The Government of Nunavut categorically disagrees with
this assessment. As demonstrated by Agnico Eagle Limited’s Meadowbank Project and other
development sites, the encroachment of road infrastructure into previously undeveloped
habitat can and does lead to profound changes in harvesting activity. The Kiggavik Project is
located at the intersecting ranges of 5 caribou herds, which combined result in the year round
presence of caribou within the Project’s Regional Study Area (RAA) and Local Study Area (LAA).
This overlap in range creates the potential for a significant and complex interaction between
caribou and harvesters when road access is provided into caribou range.746
The GN enumerated specific criticisms of AREVA’s analytical methods, including the: geographic range
of the assessment; the lack of inclusion of herds besides the Qamanirjuaq herd; and the assessment
that the proposed winter access road would have no incremental effect on access to caribou and risk
of mortality from harvest.747 The GN expressed concern in relation to: (i) the confidence of AREVA’s
predictions respecting significance of effects upon caribou; (ii) the efficacy of current plans for
monitoring of caribou movements; and (iii) the relationship between the all season road option and an
increase in caribou harvesting activities:
Although the FEIS concluded that impacts on caribou movement would be “not significant”,
the GN is of the opinion that the confidence in this prediction is low (rather than moderate)
due to: (1) limitations of the data used in the assessment; and (2) uncertainty about the
745
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p. 82.
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p. 89.
747
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 89-91 and 100-102.
746
259
effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures intended to minimize disruption of movements
(see GN comment #43).
Uncertainty around this impact prediction can be resolved by means of on-going monitoring of
caribou. However, this monitoring must be of appropriate design and intensity to detect
potential effects. Current plans presented in the FEIS for monitoring movements of caribou
are lacking in detail or design. It is therefore unclear if they will adequately support the impact
monitoring objectives.
Government of Nunavut remains concerned that there is potential for a significant increase in
wildlife harvesting pressure as a result of the Project; resulting in particular from access
granted by the all-season road option. Mitigation of this risk calls for application of the
precautionary principle in the assessment process and any subsequent approval of the Project.
Any approval of an all-season road, must be accompanied by a requirement for rigorous
monitoring of harvesting activity (GN comment #33), effective road management measures
(GN comment #44), and well defined commitments to regional caribou monitoring (GN
comment #42). 748
The Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association (NTI/KIA) Final Written Submission
also expressed criticism of AREVA’s cumulative effects assessment, suggesting that terminology used
“obscures the ability to assess the potential cumulative effects of the project.”749
The KIA also expressed criticism of technical elements of the cumulative effects assessment associated
with marine shipping:
There is substantial uncertainty regarding the proposed shipping activities, which leads to
uncertainty in the impact predictions. The marine regional assessment area (RAA) used by the
Proponent is too small an area to accurately capture the potential marine impacts from
Project-related shipping. Underestimating the size of the potential shipping footprint may lead
to an underestimation of potential Project impacts. The underwater noise modelling
conducted for the Proponent is well done, but results are dependent on the data inputs used,
the choice of modelling sites, and the available information on marine mammal hearing
abilities. Gaps in the modelling lead to uncertainties in the impact predictions. The Proponent
conducted extensive marine mammal surveys in western Hudson Bay, but the usefulness of
these survey data for impact prediction is limited due to deficiencies in survey design.
Another survey has been committed to; it should cover important areas that were missed
during the initial surveys and a period sufficient to capture information on seasonal variability
in marine mammal distribution. The dispersal of accidental fuel spills was not modelled to
assess potential impacts to marine bird and mammal populations or inform spill preparedness
planning. The cumulative and trans-boundary impact assessments have been weakened by
assessing impacts in isolation to one another, underestimating current and future shipping,
and not considering the contributions of minor impacts to cumulative impacts. These and
748
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p. 118.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
21.
749
260
other uncertainties highlight the need for robust monitoring programs to inform adaptive
management and timely mitigation of unforeseen impacts.750
NTI/KIA recommended that AREVA work closely with the KIA, the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers
Organization and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to develop a robust monitoring protocol for noise
impacts to marine mammals, with appropriate thresholds and a clear description of mitigation options
that would be implemented if negative effects of vessel noise are discovered. NTI/KIA stated that
“monitoring of vessel-related impacts will need to occur throughout the operation phase of the
Project to ensure that there are no long-term cumulative effects.”751
NTI/KIA also noted that there would be potential cumulative impacts on municipal services in Baker
Lake and other communities which were not fully considered in the FEIS:
AREVA does not provide any indication on the types of infrastructure and services provided in
the communities as well as the conditions for each in the available services. As these are part
of the community infrastructure and as such will be impacted by any potential increase in
population this information must be provided for the following community infrastructure and
services and added to Appendix 9A. In addition, a discussion on the cumulative effects on the
existing community infrastructure and services must be provided:

Water

Sewage / waste water

Power

Fuel tanks

Solid waste

Fire protection

Search and rescue

Community freezer752
In its response to written submissions, AREVA noted that the majority of the proposed shipping route
and the marine regional assessment area overlapped with two of the thirteen Canadian
subpopulations of polar bear (Western Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin sub populations) and a small
portion of the Davis Strait subpopulation towards the eastern extent of Hudson Strait, north of Ungava
Bay. It was AREVA’s conclusion that due to the timing of the proposed seasonal shipping, that
interaction between polar bears and marine transportation associated with the project would be rare.
However, AREVA also noted that it understood the limited capacity of spill response in the North, and
that an Emergency Spill Response Plan and Oil Pollution Emergency Plan would need to be approved
750
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015 p.
24.
751
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
26.
752
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p.
33.
261
before the project activity could occur. AREVA further proposed that in anticipation of licensing, if the
Project were allowed to proceed, that it would undertake fuel dispersion modelling for a reasonable
worst-case spill within the marine environment.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) reviewed the FEIS to assess whether
cumulative impacts had been adequately identified and evaluated.753 AANDC concluded that
conclusions in the FEIS respecting cumulative socio-economic impacts were not clearly articulated:
Given the current existence of a mine in the Kivalliq Region (Meadowbank) and several
potential mines in the same region in the future, the potential for cumulative socio-economic
impacts on communities in the region is real. It is therefore important for AREVA to identify
and describe the potential cumulative socio-economic effects throughout the FEIS so that the
reader of even the summary sections will see that the Proponent has acknowledged that the
project expects there to be cumulative socio-economic impacts.754
AANDC sought a commitment from AREVA to identify means of mitigating cumulative socio-economic
impacts, which could include collaborative monitoring.755 In AREVA’s Response to the final written
submission as presented by AANDC’s, it made a commitment to regional monitoring, with a
reservation respecting differentiation between regional trends and project specific trends, and with an
observation that the mechanism for monitoring required “a closer alignment of a monitoring
framework and coordination that will capitalize on any changes in relative capacities, interests,
activities, and responsibilities of parties over that time.”756
The Environment Canada (EC) Final Written Submission referred to uncertainty regarding cumulative
effects of marine shipping on marine birds, stating that baseline data was missing and that impacts
were therefore unknown:
The Proponent is planning for a 60-day open-water shipping season (August 1- October 1) and
estimates that marine shipping for their Project may account for 14 percent and 12 percent of
the total annual marine traffic through Hudson Strait during construction and operation
phases, respectively (Appendix2J - Table 3.3-2 and Table 3.3-3). lf the presented cumulative
annual vessel traffic anticipated through Hudson Strait is considered, marine birds will
encounter approximately two to three ships/day during the construction and operation
phases of this project. It is EC's position that the impacts and cumulative effects of marine
shipping through Hudson Strait on marine birds are unknown and more baseline monitoring of
foraging marine bird distributions is required to determine this with certainty.757
AREVA’s response to the written submission as provided by EC acknowledged that marine birds were
present in the local and regional assessment areas, for part or all of their life cycle; but took the
position that marine vessels were not expected to have a measureable effect on bird health, behavior,
753
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 1.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 10.
755
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 22.
756
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-7.
757
Environment Canada, Final Written Submission, January 21, 2015, p. 39.
754
262
or habitat given the short duration of vessel operations (open-water season) and the infrequent
number of vessel transits. It maintained its position that substantive effects on marine birds are not
expected to occur. AREVA expressed willingness to work with EC to consider the inclusion of a marine
bird observation procedure into the proposed marine wildlife observation program and other relevant
management plans prior to Project licensing.758
As noted in preceding sections of the report, within its final written submission, the Beverly and
Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB) expressed numerous concerns regarding AREVA’s
cumulative effects assessment and disagreed with AREVA’s assessment of significance, stating:
The BQCMB and caribou-using communities disagree with these FEIS conclusions because they
are based on an approach that assesses significance of effects based entirely on anticipated
influence on the long-term viability of a herd or its recovery using scientific knowledge about
the herds, including knowledge about natural variability. The BQCMB considers this unrealistic
and inadequate given the lack of scientific knowledge about the caribou herds using the
Kiggavik Project area. The high level of uncertainty results in low confidence in prediction of
non-significance. 759
In this regard, BQCMB corroborated the lack of baseline information respecting caribou identified in
AREVA’s FEIS:
It is also a concern to the BQCMB and communities that the level of uncertainty is so high for
so many of the factors that must be considered in assessing Project and cumulative effects,
including: the current population status of the caribou herds; the vulnerability of the herds to
stress; the level of negative effects that the caribou have experienced recently/currently
resulting from both natural causes (e.g., predation, diseases and parasites) and human
activities (e.g., mineral exploration and development, climate change) 760
The BQCMB’s Final Written Submission concluded that the potential cumulative effects of the Project
are significant:
As a result of the uncertainty in the assessment, including planning for mitigation and
monitoring, the BQCMB concludes that the cumulative effects on caribou are significant and
there will be transboundary effects on Qamanirjuaq caribou harvesters outside Nunavut.761
The BQCMB responded to AREVA’s proposal that monitoring could compensate for information
deficiency at the level of the NIRB review by expressing concern about regulatory capacity:
The BQCMB is concerned that monitoring and mitigation for cumulative effects will be
complex, demanding and require coordination between several agencies. Requirements may
exceed the capacity of these agencies to monitor and mitigate with sufficient precision to
758
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-166 – 2-167.
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 14.
760
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 15.
761
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 2.
759
263
detect Kiggavik effects. Collaborative planning for monitoring and mitigation of cumulative
effects from induced development is required, and therefore we have recommended that a
regional terrestrial cumulative effects framework be established through the Nunavut General
Monitoring Program that is based on collaboration with AREVA and others.762
The BQCMB also referred to the necessity of considering Aboriginal perspectives in the consideration
of effect, and concluded:
The BQCMB concludes that there is substantial risk that the Project will play a significant role
in reduction or loss of caribou harvest and traditional culture over the long-term by opening
up the region for other exploration and development. Application of a strongly precautionary
approach is required due to the extreme importance, permanence and non-mitigable nature
of this potential effect.763
In its Response to the BQCMB’s expression of concerns about significance of effects, AREVA stated:
It is AREVA's position that the effects assessment, including the assessment of significance, is
sufficient to inform a decision under the NIRB process, Project Certificate terms and
conditions, and monitoring frameworks that will be further developed in licensing. Caribou
are an important resource and AREVA does not question the value of caribou to traditional
harvesters for subsistence and cultural and spiritual connections. Long-term sustainable
caribou harvest is 1) a shared responsibility with governments, wildlife management boards,
Inuit and other Aboriginal Organizations, industry, and the public all having roles to play and 2)
influenced by a number of factors beyond responsible resource development. AREVA has
provided a comprehensive assessment of potential project and cumulative effects with
consideration for continued availability and accessibility of caribou for harvest.764
In its Response to the BQCMB’s expression of concerns about the cumulative effects assessment
approach, AREVA stated:
While acknowledging uncertainties, the cumulative energetics assessment of the Qamanirjuaq
Herd provides a context within which to consider and understand various sources of human
disturbance on the sustainability of the herd. On a go-forward basis, and as additional
information becomes available, this assessment tool can be utilized to incorporate new
information and support future decision-making. It is AREVA’s position that the cumulative
effects assessment does not need to be re-evaluated.765
The Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD) also expressed concerns about AREVA’s
cumulative effects assessment methodology. The AD supported the views of the BQCMB expressed in
that section of the BQCMB Final Submissions entitled “Technical Comments on Cumulative Effects and
762
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 3.
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 17.
764
AREVA Responses to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-52.
765
AREVA Responses to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-54.
763
264
Integrated Planning”. In addition, the AD recommended “re-assess[ment of] the results for
significance of impact to caribou from the perspective of the AD land users and harvesters.”766
During the Final Hearing, reference was made to the potential for additional uranium mine
developments to follow from the opening of the proposed Kiggavik Project mine and mill. This was
described by some as induced development, and by others as a ‘basin opening’ effect. Parties who
made these references included the Baker Lake HTO767, Makita768,769 and Paula Kigjugalik Hughson.770
These parties suggested that approval and construction of the Kiggavik Project infrastructure could
lower the overhead costs for other uranium developments in the area, allowing greater opportunity
for other developments to compound development effects in the area.
AREVA’s response to final written submissions outlined that its cumulative effects assessment had
considered a Far Future Scenario in which this type of potential cumulative “basin opening” effect was
considered and included in the conclusions of the cumulative effects assessment. AREVA further
noted that other proposed developments which could occur in the future would also have to undergo
the impact assessment process and would be required, as AREVA has been, to consider how its
development would affect or contribute to this concern.771
6.4.3 Conclusions
The Minister’s letter of February 23, 2010, highlighted the importance of a thorough cumulative
impacts assessment, and that cumulative impacts of particular concern include those to caribou
migration and calving grounds, and related socio-economic impacts to Baker Lake and other impacted
communities.
With respect to cumulative impacts to caribou migration, the Board finds that the information base is
inadequate to make a thorough cumulative effects assessment. The Board shares observations made
by AREVA itself respecting limits in the available information base. AREVA’s conclusions respecting
Project effects was caveated with the observation that potential project effects on caribou movement
are difficult to predict and quantity.772 As regards the tools for assessment of cumulative effects,
AREVA’s FEIS notes that no standards or thresholds exist for determining the significance of Project
effects on Caribou,773 and there are no known or definitive habitat loss or disturbance thresholds
specific to barren ground caribou.774 AREVA also acknowledges that there are no prescribed
thresholds for evaluation of Project effects on caribou movements, and that predicting caribou
behavioral responses is challenged by a lack of empirical or conclusive behavioral data and how that
766
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Final Written Submissions, January 17, 2015, p. 2.
D. Toolooktook, Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1246, lines 17-23.
768
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 2.
769
H. Tagoona, Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, pp. 1164-1165, lines 8-26 and 1-25.
770
P. Kigjugalik Hughson, Registered Intervenor, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 5.
771
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-442.
772
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-64.
773
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-4.
774
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-5.
767
265
may affect population-level movement.775 AREVA noted many inconsistencies between Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit, local knowledge, scientific literature and unpublished government reports.776 Its
Report suggests that cumulative effects to caribou health are also difficult to quantify.777 Citing the
conflicting date, AREVA states that the community of Baker Lake may already be harvesting at a level
that is exceeding sustainable limits.778 It states:
Based on the contradictory date on current caribou population levels and harvest rates, the
determination of whether Baker Lake harvesters are capable of harvesting more caribou that
sustainable limits is difficult to determine, creating uncertainty in the confidence of
cumulative effects predictions.779
The BQCMB corroborated the lack of basic baseline information regarding caribou identified by
AREVA, citing absence of basic information about even such basic matters as the current population
status of the caribou herds.
Lack of basic, baseline knowledge regarding caribou is a concern to the Board. During the Final
Hearings the Board heard that many Nunavummiut were not necessarily opposed to development,
provided that it could be done responsibly and without impacting the caribou. The information base
presents real limits to an understanding of the relationship between caribou and industrial human
activities.
The information base on which to make thorough predictions respecting cumulative effects is too
limited. The NIRB recommends that the Minister take the initiative to foster and facilitate the
development or enhancement of programs which resolve this uncertainty, and so facilitate effective
decision-making in future. The Board finds that enhanced cooperation of the many entities
responsible for oversight of Caribou is essential, and also now urgent.
With respect to related socio-economic impacts to Baker Lake, the Board finds that the community of
Baker Lake will realize no direct revenue from the taxes and royalties associated with the Project, or
from an Impact Benefit Agreement associated with the Project. As the nearest community to the
Project site, and as the site of the proposed Dock facility, the community will experience the greatest
impacts while receiving the least income to deal with those effects. These effects would be in addition
to similar impacts arising from development of the Meadowbank Gold Mine.
With respect to socio-economic impacts to other impacted communities, the Board finds that this will
largely arise from travel to and from the worksite by Nunavummiut who may work at the mine, or in
associated shipping activities. These communities will, like Baker Lake, not realize an increase in
revenues to deal with these matters, but the pressure upon municipal infrastructure and social
cohesion will be less than that placed upon Baker Lake.
775
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-5.
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-6.
777
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-79.
778
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-88.
779
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-80.
776
266
6.5
Regulatory Capacity
6.5.1 Summary of Key Issues
This section examines the regulatory capacity to address key issues raised before the Board. The
effect of future monitoring as a mitigation device for impacts on caribou, the marine environment, on
socio-economic effects, is a key issue addressed here.
The FEIS itself emphasizes that regulation of caribou requires collaborative work amongst many
stakeholders:
AREVA will continue to work collaboratively with caribou stakeholders including the Baker
Lake HTO, the Kivalliq Wildlife Board, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the
Government of Nunavut and other mining companies. A Wildlife Monitoring and Management
Plan will be implemented.780
In its Response to Final Written Submissions, AREVA states:
Caribou are an important resource and AREVA does not question the value of caribou to
traditional harvesters for subsistence and cultural and spiritual connections. Long-term
sustainable caribou harvest is 1) a shared responsibility with governments, wildlife
management boards, Inuit and other Aboriginal Organizations, industry, and the public all
having roles to play… .781
The CNSC submission makes it clear that the CNSC regulates the uranium mine and mill itself but not
the caribou outside these facilities:
We need to clarify when we were talking about what issues we address and our area of
influence. We are responsible for regulating worker and safety and the control of releases
within the facility boundaries and assessing and -- and making sure that those releases did not
pose unacceptable impacts on the -- on the environment and to members of public. So when
it comes to releases from a facility through the atmosphere, through the water, how they
move in transport through the environment, that is part of our regulatory oversight. We've
been trying to make it clear that issues related to road transport, barges, air disturbance of
caribou, those kind of issues are not directly within our mandate, nor do we -- you have other
bodies that are far better qualified to -- to regulate and assess those things than us.782
During the Final Hearing, AREVA explained that its approach emphasizes the necessity of collaboration
amongst stakeholders, and states its commitment to contribute to regional-level wildlife surveys led
by other entities:
780
FEIS, Volume 1, Table 5.4-1.
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-52.
782
M. McKee, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 7,
2015, p. 1046, lines 5-20.
781
267
Addressing some of the broader knowledge uncertainties will take a collaborative approach
among the stakeholders. AREVA's wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan identifies AREVA's
commitments to monitoring wildlife responses to the project and to manage effects on wildlife
when they are observed. The plan is a living document that will continually be improved when
new information on effects and new techniques to manage effects becomes available. The
plan also identifies AREVA's commitment to contribute to regional-level wildlife surveys and to
participate in cumulative effects monitoring programs in collaboration with the Government of
Nunavut and other stakeholders. The key outstanding issues for the wildlife assessment
generally relate to information uncertainties. The outstanding issues do not change AREVA's
conclusions of not-significant effects on wildlife. AREVA will work collaboratively to develop
procedures, protocols, and criteria for the monitoring and mitigation of project effects and
enhance the wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan accordingly. AREVA agrees with the
Government of Nunavut's suggested collaborative approach to wildlife monitoring. AREVA will
manage and monitor project effects and will work to ensure coordination of that monitoring
with the Government of Nunavut's regional wildlife programs.783
Within its final written submission, the Government of Nunavut (GN) expressed concern about its
capacity to undertake effective caribou monitoring, noting that GN led programs are currently regional
and herd-level in focus, and are not specifically designed to meet the monitoring needs of individual
development projects.784 The GN suggested that the cost of its monitoring may exceed its fiscal
resources, which would not necessarily mean that monitoring efforts would not be effective. The GN
clearly stated that it expected proponents to contribute to the cost of monitoring, and that project
specific monitoring obligations should be the responsibility of proponents rather than the GN:
The GN is not in a position to assume the burden of caribou monitoring on behalf of the
Proponent. The GN supports a collaborative approach to monitoring whereby the Proponent,
along with other stakeholders, contributes resources to GN-led regional monitoring programs.
The success of this integrated approach is subject to the availability of financial resources. The
level of support provided by the Proponent is one factor that will determine success.785
The GN Final Written Submission further stated that many of the assumptions about the effectiveness
of future monitoring were not valid:
The FEIS states that “…the company support of government-led population monitoring will be
defined” Vol 1, s8.3.4.1, page 115) but does not indicate when this definition will be provided.
It is the GN’s view that the nature and level of support provided by the Proponent should be
determined prior to issuance of a Project certificate so that the Government of Nunavut, the
Nunavut Impact Review Board, and other stakeholders can assess: (a) the likelihood that the
cost of these monitoring programs can be sustained hence the programs will proceed; and (b)
the likelihood they will provide data sufficient the meet the Project’s monitoring obligations.
Accordingly it is recommended that:
783
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, pp. 1943 -194, lines
24-26 and 1-25.
784
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-282.
785
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p. 118.
268
Prior to issuance of a Project certificate, the Proponent complete an agreement with the GN
that defines the Proponent’s support for GN-led regional caribou monitoring over the life of
the Project.
…
In the event that agreement is not reached between the parties, the Proponent shall submit to
NIRB for review a revised Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan detailing alternative regional
caribou monitoring programs designed to meet the Project’s monitoring needs and
obligations.
The Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (WMMP) is a key document in the FEIS. The
mitigation measures included in this document have been used to justify reductions in
potential Project impacts on terrestrial wildlife and therefore have a significant bearing in the
final impact conclusions. A detailed WMMP is required so that reviewers can assess the
validity of impact conclusions that have relied on mitigation to reach a determination of “not
significant”.786
As currently presented, the WMMP is inadequate. It is lacking in numerous important details
regarding mitigation measures and the monitoring mechanisms used to trigger those
measures. This makes the impact predictions for terrestrial wildlife, in particular caribou,
more uncertain (i.e. of lower confidence) than presented in the FEIS.
AREVA restated its position that that hunter harvest, and the potential for redistribution of hunter
harvest associated with the development of the Kiggavik Project, are important considerations in the
ecosystemic sustainability of the caribou herds; but that the hunter harvest study is most
appropriately led by organizations with harvest responsibility under the NLCA, and that AREVA should
engage and collaborate in the delivery of the study.787
AREVA also expressed its intent to consider seeking participation in the Marine Environment Working
Group (MEWG) that was established for the Mary River Iron Mine, stating that it viewed this as an
opportunity to contribute to understanding the potential cumulative and/or transboundary effects of
shipping on the marine environment.788
In their final written submission, NTI/KIA observed that the questions of regulatory capacity and
responsibility, and openly questioned whether there was a political will to meet these collaborative
monitoring obligations (whether marine or terrestrial) in a timely way:
The NIRB has identified a need for increased dialogue among all parties regarding marine
shipping in Nunavut, including Proponents, communities and governments. This important
activity requires leadership and communication from the government agencies and
departments responsible for overseeing the laws and regulations that govern shipping in
waters of the Nunavut Settlement Area, as well as the parties with responsibilities for the
786
Government of Nunavut Final Written, Submission, January 16, 2015, pp. 96 - 100.
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-258.
788
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-376.
787
269
management and protection of marine wildlife and wildlife habitat. It will be important to
establish whether there exists the political will and departmental capacity to meet these
needs in a timely manner and, if not, to consider alternatives.789
The Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization (Baker Lake HTO) is one of the entities which
would be engaged in ongoing monitoring of any uranium mining development in the vicinity of Baker
Lake. The Baker Lake HTO, for its part, expressed concern that the GN caribou strategy would not be
effective:
The government of Nunavut's caribou strategy contains a long list of actions that might be
done to protect caribou from increased human activities. AREVA's proposed mine will add
stress to the Kivalliq’s caribou herds. The Government of Nunavut must meet with the Baker
Lake HTO to discuss the implementation of the caribou strategy. The implementation plan
must satisfy the Baker Lake HTO.790
The Baker Lake HTO Written Submission emphasized that the Baker Lake HTO lacks the capacity to do
an effective job at monitoring, whether the monitoring is led by the Government of Nunavut or by
AREVA. It outlined the types of resources a monitoring program would require:
a. Contract the HTO to monitor caribou and other wildlife along all roads and near the
mine site. AREVA will provide funding to the HTO to operate an independent wildlife
monitoring program.
b. Provide funding to the HTO to hire additional staff, to ensure the HTO has the capacity
to deal with monitoring reports, future exploration/mining proposals, etc.
c. Provide funding to Government of Nunavut Department of Environment to undertake
aerial population counts and surveys of the calving grounds of all affected caribou herds
during the mine's operation.791
A similar approach was undertaken with respect to mitigation of socio-economic concerns. AREVA
acknowledged that the potential for cumulative socio-economic impacts on the people of Kivalliq
region from mining in the region was real. It then stated that monitoring of such impacts could
contribute to their mitigation:
It is therefore important for AREVA to identify means of mitigating cumulative socio-economic
impacts, of which collaborative monitoring is one means identified by AREVA in Sec. 6.5.6 of
Volume 9, Part 1. For the sake of clarity, it is important that collaborative monitoring be made
explicit as a mitigation measure for cumulative socioeconomic impacts throughout the FEIS.792
789
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015,
pp. 27 - 28.
790
Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, Final Written Submission, March 2, 2015, p. 1.
791
Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization, Final Written Submission, March 2, 2015, p. 2.
792
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-8.
270
… AREVA considers that its commitment to participate in agreed collaborative monitoring, as
described in FEIS Tier 2 Volume 9 Part 1 Section 6.5.6 Collaborative Monitoring and as restated in the response to AANDC 2.1.3 and GN-1are sufficient to meet the intent of this
comment.793
AREVA made it clear that participation in the SEMC would also require collaboration of multiple
stakeholders:
Benefit enhancement is best addressed in an adaptive way through … participation in the
regional SEMC with the anticipated participation of AANDC, the GN, KIA, Hamlets, and other
proponents.794
6.5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
AREVA concluded that the potential impacts of its project on caribou, or on the marine environment,
are not significant; and it then offered to contribute to future monitoring activities. This commitment
to future monitoring is, presumably, not an end in itself, but a way of providing information for sound
decision-making through future adaptive management. AREVA similarly recognizes the potential for
socio-economic effects, and also suggests that monitoring could serve as an effective mitigation tool.
For reasons stated elsewhere in this Report, NIRB does not have confidence in AREVA’s conclusions
respecting project impacts on caribou, or on the marine environment. Further, the Board is not willing
to accept a commitment to future monitoring as sufficient to warrant recommending that the Project
proceed at this time.
The Board agrees with the Government of Nunavut views, that the effectiveness of future monitoring
will be dependent on funding. There is no certainty that such funding will be in place. The Board
observes that all parties appear to agree that collaboration is necessary for future monitoring to be
effective, but that the necessary conditions for effective collaboration do not appear to be in place.
There is uncertainty about who will lead the collaboration required for effective monitoring. There
appears to be a general lack of regulatory capacity to monitor effectively, or to implement adaptive
management techniques necessary to respond to effective monitoring (if that is ever put into effect).
For example, if the Government of Nunavut states that it lacks the financial resources to monitor
effectively, then similar capacity and funding concerns will certainly exist for other stakeholder entities
which need to be involved in an effective monitoring exercise.
The NIRB observes that the BQCMB appears to lack capacity in relation to information gaps respecting
caribou. Although its mandate includes providing a way to deal with the multi‐jurisdictional nature of
the caribou herds, it appeared to the Board to reflect a lack of effective capacity. Its Chair spoke of
limitations in its capacity to monitor, as follows:
We try to use the best scientific information we have out there, which is -- one of the best ones
we have is collaring. A lot of people don't like collaring, but right now, that's -- that's the best
793
794
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-9.
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-21.
271
tool the -- the biologists have right now. 'Cause, I mean, there's so many different herds of
caribou, and they roam -- they roam all over the place. You don't know where you're going to
see them next. So this collar, it's a tool, but it -- it's not the best, but it's the best thing that's
out there right now because it gives us an idea. And with collars, you gotta have such a huge
cross-section -- … What -- what we have to do is we have to --when we place these collars on
these animals, we – we have to have enough collars to give us as good cross-section of what's
happening out there. If you have 4 -- 200 -- 200,000 caribou and you have 50 collars on, that
gives you an idea what's going on there, but it doesn't give you the full picture. Because after -you know, caribou disperse. After they're rut, the bulls go different places usually, and the
cows and calves go somewhere else. So the more collars we have, the better it is.795
Despite the efforts by the BQCMB, AREVA identified fundamental gaps in the information base
respecting caribou populations. AREVA’s conclusions about Project effects were caveated with the
observation that potential project effects on caribou movement are difficult to predict and quantity.796
As regards the tools for assessment of cumulative effects, AREVA’s FEIS notes that no standards or
thresholds exist for determining the significance of Project effects on caribou,797 and there are no
known or definitive habitat loss or disturbance thresholds specific to barren ground caribou.798 AREVA
also acknowledged that there are no prescribed thresholds for evaluation of Project effects on caribou
movements, and that predicting caribou behavioral responses is challenged by a lack of empirical or
conclusive behavioral data and how that may affect population-level movement.799 AREVA notes
many inconsistencies between Inuit Qaujimaningit, local knowledge, scientific literature and
unpublished government reports.800 Its Report suggests that cumulative effects to caribou health are
also difficult to quantify.801
The lack of scientific capacity in the BQCMB was evident from the BQCMB presentation at the Final
Hearing, given by its Chair. The Chair recognized the need for better baseline information, stating:
But like I said, but in order for the people to have caribou, we have to protect those caribou.
And we've got to do everything in our power to protect those caribou, and by doing that, we
have to do our studies, we have to do our monitoring, and we have to do it properly. We can't
do a half-assed job. We have to do everything we can to get good numbers and see what's
happening out there on the land.802
The Chair emphasized, almost exclusively, subjective anecdotal evidence which appeared to be his
personal view. Though helpful, this anecdotal evidence does not fill basic baseline information gaps
795
E. Evans, Beverley and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1298-1299, lines 5-17, 21-26 and 1-5.
796
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-64.
797
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-4.
798
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-5.
799
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-5.
800
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-6.
801
FEIS, Volume 6, p. 13-79.
802
E. Evans, Beverley and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1312, lines 17-24.
272
identified by the BQCMB and also AREVA. For example, the BQCMB Chair spoke of wastage of caribou
occasioned by hunting associated with increased road access in the Northwest Territories:
And, also, driving to the mine, you can hunt to the mine. You can roll down your window -- I've
seen it happen; guys rolling their windows shooting caribou right out of the truck with their
cowboy boots on. Go up on a bank and drag them in the truck and go back to Yellowknife.
You know, that's -- that's what happens on winter roads if nobody's there to monitor them and
to -- to see what's really happening out there.803
The Chair suggested that these increased pressures existed from many compass points within the
caribou range. This was helpful to a point, but did not illuminate the reasons for the absence of
baseline information respecting the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq herds, or the challenges facing the
assembly of adequate information about these herds. To the extent it was helpful, the anecdotal
evidence from the Chair of the BQCMB suggests a dramatic decline in caribou populations and
significant pressures on the herds:
Gordon Lake is 25 miles long, 3 miles across. I've seen caribou from one shore to the other, not
in one line but spread out, thousands of them. Today that herd -- they can hunt zero caribou
out of that herd. There's 15,000 left from 470. I'm not saying the road did that to the caribou,
but the road sure didn't help….
Every person in Yellowknife, if there's a family of five, man, woman, three kids, they're allowed
25 caribou, five tags each. They can go out every Saturday hunt and shoot five caribou and
bring them home. Guys are bringing them home whole because they didn't know how to skin
them. They know how to shoot them, but they didn't know how to skin them. Bring them
home, put them in their warehouse. Come springtime, they drag them to the dump.
Yellowknife dump, there's more caribou at Yellowknife dump than any lake on the road in the
springtime.804
The Chair of the BQCMB attributed lack of information about these anecdotal events to the absence of
regulatory capacity in the NWT and in the BQCMB:
A lot of people, you go up to them and ask them how many caribou you kill; they just say, None
of your business. Well, it is our business. It's our business, if we want to develop a plan to
protect the animals for those people. So they have -- if they have any brains in their head or
care about the caribou, they will give us those numbers. It's not going to hurt them. We're not
going to say, Oh, don't shoot another caribou. You killed too many. Just put that information
on the table so we could analyze it and make a decision here so we can protect those caribous
so you can have some for next year and the year after and for your kids after that. That's why
we need these numbers, not to say, Don't stop hunting.
803
E. Evans, Beverley and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, p. 1300, lines 17–24.
804
E. Evans, Beverley and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003
Transcript, March 9, 2015, pp. 1301–1302, lines 15-26 and 1-6.
273
The NIRB concludes that monitoring to date has not resulted in reliable baseline data for caribou
populations across jurisdictional lines. Further, without adaptive management, monitoring of itself is
not effective as a mitigation tool. Mechanisms for future monitoring and adaptive management in
relation to caribou herds, or the marine environment and the wildlife in that marine environment, are
not at all well-defined. The NIRB attributes this to lack of capacity to address problems which
inherently cross jurisdictional lines.
NIRB recognizes the mineral potential of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, including uranium potential,
and therefore concludes there is an urgent need for more effective scientific monitoring of the caribou
herds in Kivalliq, and of the marine environment and the mammals and fish in that marine
environment. The extent and quality of baseline information regarding caribou, and regarding marine
mammals and fish of significance to the beneficiaries of the NLCA, will be increasingly essential to the
work of NIRB as more and more mining proposals come before it.
6.6
Operational Variability
6.6.1 Summary of Key Issues
Key issues addressed here are use of technological innovations previously untested in the arctic,
including mine design, operation and tailings containment, and the operational variability associated
with the potential development of an all season road.
Mine Design, Operation and Tailings Containment
The question of previously untested technological innovations arises from the Minister’s letter of
February 23, 2010, in which the Minister referred to Project to NIRB for review under Article 12 Part 5
of the NLCA. In that letter the Minister stated:
Pursuant to section 12.5.1 of the Agreement, I would like to highlight specific issues for the
Board to pay particular attention to during the course of its review. AREVA’s proposal to use
technological innovations previously untested in the Arctic introduces a measure of
uncertainty regarding their potential impacts. My primary concerns relate to the use of new
technology for mine design, and operation and tailings containment. It is essential that these
aspects of the Proposal are thoroughly assessed in order to ensure impact predictions to
surface and ground water are accurate.
NIRB’s Final EIS Guidelines required AREVA to include within the scope of the assessment discussion of
technological innovations previously untested in the Arctic including new technology for mine design,
and operation and tailings containment.
AREVA’s FEIS described how it met this requirement:
1.6.4.7 Northern Experience
AREVA’s Cluff Lake and McClean Lake sites are at a latitude of approximately 58°N. AREVA’s
direct Arctic experience comes from its exploration and site characterization activities at the
Kiggavik Project. To supplement this exposure, AREVA has looked closely at winter road
transportation in the NWT and has visited operating mines in both the NWT and Nunavut in
274
order to capitalize on any lessons learned. Literature related to both the Polaris and Nanisivik
mines has also been considered.805
The FEIS does not contain a specific section relating to technological innovations previously untested
in the Arctic including new technology for mine design, and operation and tailings containment.
Instead, AREVA’s consideration of these matters is integrated throughout the FEIS. An example of this
integration was given by Mr. Huffman:
There's some questions about studies of permafrost, and I wanted to point out that we have
been looking at doing studies of permafrost in the vicinity of the -- of the mine site for a
couple reasons. One is to make sure that our tailings area is -- is safe, both in the condition
where there is permafrost, and if there is climate change and there is no more permafrost, to
guarantee that it is still safe. And in underground mining, one of the concerns we have about
permafrost is we'll be -- we'll be mining to a depth that would be below the permafrost. So
we need to -- we look at what the water inflow might be into the mine so that we understand
how much water we may have to treat from the inflow of that water below the level of the
permafrost.806
AREVA expressed confidence that it could safely construct, operate and reclaim its mine and mill in an
arctic environment.
Mine design, operation and tailings containment are under the jurisdiction of the CNSC, even in an
arctic region. The CNSC reviewed AREVA’s FEIS and concluded that outstanding issues under the
mandate of the FEIS could be addressed during the CNSC’s licencing process.807 The CNSC licencing
process was described by the CNSC, as follows:
An applicant would submit a license application to the CNSC. The application must include all
the necessary information including detailed designs, programs and procedures to
demonstrate how requirements specific to each of the safety and control areas listed in table
2 are being met. In addition, in the case of the Kiggavik Project, the submission would need to
address any additional requirements stemming from the EA that are relevant to the CNSC’s
mandate. CNSC staff will then conduct a technical assessment to determine if the applicant’s
information meets the regulatory requirements of the NSCA and its regulations, CNSC
requirements and expectations, international and domestic standards, and applicable
international obligations. Once the assessment of an applicant’s information is complete,
CNSC staff will make recommendations on the license application to the Commission through
the submission of a Commission Member Document (CMD). A hearing will be held to take into
account the views, concerns and opinions of interested parties and intervenors. Commission
hearings are open to the public and webcast live. The Commission considers the entirety of an
application and all information received in the course of the matter before making a decision.
Each decision to license is based on information that demonstrates that the applicant is
805
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 17.
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 12, 2015, p. 1942, lines 8-22.
807
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 3.
806
275
qualified, and that activity or the operation of a given facility can be carried out safely and that
the environment is protected.
Following the hearing, the Commission members will deliberate and issue a decision, including
reasons for the decision. Typically, the decision and reasons are published within six weeks
after the close of the hearing.808
Should the Kiggavik mine develop, the CNSC proposes to manage the mine and mill from its existing
offices in Saskatchewan and Ottawa. No new office would be opened in Nunavut.
Potential for an All-Season Road
The potential need for an all-season access road is described in AREVA’s FEIS:
A winter road will be required during the construction phase of the Project. Analysis of
alternatives indicates that the operational phase is likely viable with a winter road; however,
uncertainty surrounding the potential effects of climate change and materials supply logistics
over the life of the mine suggests that it is prudent to include an all- season road option in
case the winter road cannot adequately support the Project through to decommissioning and
closure.809
…
The winter road will be utilized for the first few years and if the materials are being
transported reliably to site, AREVA will continue with the winter road. If the materials are
not being transported to site on the winter road due to length of season, operational
difficulties or high operational costs, the construction of the all-season road will be
evaluated.810
….
We will commit to beginning our operation with the use of the winter road, and we hope and
we have every reason to believe that it can support us throughout the life of the operation.
However, we -- we wish to continue to have the all-season road option considered in the
assessment and in these proceedings in the event that it may be needed someday in the
future. If we cannot adequately support our mine site, then this is an option that -- that we'll
need.811
The existence of an all season road could support the development of additional mines in the Kivalliq
region. This ‘basin opening effect’ was recognized by AREVA, which acknowledged that the operation
life of the mill at the Kiggavik site could be extended if AREVA elected to develop additional mines in
the Kivalliq region.
808
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 31.
FEIS, Volume 2, p. 10-14.
810
FEIS, Volume 2, p . 1 0 - 1 5 .
811
D. Huffman, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 154, lines 1–9.
809
276
A number of Interveners expressed concern that the potential for an all season road introduced
uncertainty into the predictions in the FEIS.
The Government of Nunavut position was expressed in its Final Written Submissions:
It is the Government of Nunavut’s position that the lack of detail in the FEIS on road
management measures for mitigating impacts on wildlife introduces significant uncertainty
into the effects assessment. Accordingly, the GN disagrees with the Proponent’s conclusions
that the residual cumulative impacts on wildlife resulting from operation of the road will be
“not significant” with moderate confidence. Based on the information presented in the FEIS,
the GN maintains that confidence in these impact predictions is low. The GN remains
concerned about the potential for significant road-related impacts resulting from improved
public access to wildlife, in particular the potential effects on rates of caribou mortality and
indirect habitat loss. Furthermore, the GN disagrees with the Proponent’s assessment that a
winter road from Baker Lake to the Kiggavik project will necessarily have negligible impacts on
public access to wildlife and that monitoring associated with a winter road is therefore not
required. It is the GN’s position that this impact prediction must be tested by means of winter
road traffic monitoring and harvest monitoring.812
The position of NTI/KIA was also stated in its Final Written Submissions:
Most community concerns to date on the Kiggavik project revolve around road and
access/dust issues, changes to caribou movements and migration, and contamination of
caribou. AREVA has addressed many of the issues KIA raised during its review of the DEIS and
emanating from the NIRB PHC decision. The caribou energetics-protein and population model
was a welcome addition to the assessment.
However, a number of issues and concerns remain. The uncertainty in road options reduced
clarity and added uncertainty to the assessment process. How AREVA will control and manage
public access on either road system, and the potential impact of the road options to hunter
harvest and distribution, remain unclear. The assumption that the winter access road option
will provide little improvement to winter harvest access is untested and unsupported. Dust
generation and its effects on vegetation and caribou distribution and health are primary
community concerns, and it is unclear whether dust suppression and monitoring will
adequately address these concerns.813
6.6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The NIRB accepts that the information provided in the FEIS about the use of new technology for
mine design, and operation and tailings containment in the arctic is sufficient, and that the CNSC
would address these issues during its licensing review process.
812
Government of Nunavut, Final Written Submission, January 16, 2015, p. 102.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission, Appendix 9,
January 26, 2015, pp. 1-2.
813
277
The NIRB accepts that the proposal for an all season access road, with the potential for basin opening
effects, reduces confidence in the assessment of effects contained in the FEIS. This is in addition to
the reduction of confidence associated with the absence of a start date for the Project.
6.7
Performance Bonding
6.7.1 Summary of Key Issues
Section 12.5.5 of the NLCA requires the NIRB to take into account all matters that are relevant to its
mandate, including posting of performance bonds. The EIS Guide requires the Proponent shall identify
and describe any obligations or requirements that it must meet to post a bond or other forms of
financial security to ensure payment of compensation in the event of accidents that directly or
indirectly result in major damage by the Project to the environment, as well as to cover the cost of
planned or premature closure, whether temporary or permanent.
In this case, performance bonding would be addressed during regulatory review by the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission and the Nunavut Water Board.
6.7.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Board is satisfied that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Nunavut Water Board would
ensure that bonding was adequate.
6.8
Transboundary Effects
AREVA’s FEIS spoke to transboundary effects, as follows:
A transboundary effect may occur when a residual effect occurs outside the Nunavut
Settlement Area or when animals move across jurisdictional boundaries.
Terrestrial Transboundary Effects - The Qamanirjuaq, Beverly and Ahiak caribou herds
migrate across political boundaries into the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the
Northwest Territories. Aboriginal harvesters of these herds outside the Nunavut Settlement
Area have raised concerns that any impact to these caribou herds will subsequently impact
their harvest rights in addition to their Aboriginal culture and identity, which is closely tied to
caribou. Predicted Project effects on caribou include direct mortality (collisions), direct and
indirect habitat loss (Project footprint, dust and sensory disturbance), possible avoidance of
Project area but no alteration to migration patterns and no change to health. Predicted
cumulative effects to caribou include a possible shift in proportional caribou herd take or an
overall increase in harvest to the Qamanirjuaq herd given the development of the alternative
all-season access road option and changes in harvest patterns. Considering that neither the
Project nor cumulative effects to caribou are significant, no significant adverse transboundary
effects are predicted for caribou.
Transportation – All resource development projects require the transport of goods to the
project site and the transport of product to market. There are existing, charted shipping lanes
278
and flight routes throughout Canada and internationally. The assessment has included an
assessment of marine transport in Hudson Bay and Strait and a risk assessment for transport
of uranium ore concentrate (UOC) that considers the flight path from the Kiggavik site to the
airstrip at Points North, Saskatchewan. Transport of UOC will be in accordance with
regulations governing the safe transport of radioactive materials including the Transportation
of Dangerous Goods Regulations and the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances
Regulations. Development of an Emergency Response Assistance plan (ERAP) is a postenvironmental assessment requirement that must be accepted by Transport Canada prior to
shipment. AREVA currently maintains an ERAP for UOC transport in Canada.814
AREVA did not predict significant environmental effects within or outside Nunavut.
The caribou herds in the vicinity of the Project are the Beverly, Ahiak, Wager Bay, Lorillard, and
Qamanirjuaq herds. The winter ranges of the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq herds, at least, extend into the
Northwest Territory and/or the northern reaches of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and/or Alberta. Project
effects on these herds could constitute a transboundary effect for this reason.
Within its final written submission, AANDC noted that there was a lack of information on potential
socio-economic impacts and benefits within the FEIS regarding transboundary groups and requested
additional information related to employment projections and economic benefits for non-Inuit
Aboriginal groups who have expressed an interest in the Project.815 AREVA stated that it consequently
did not develop plans related to transboundary economic benefits that target Aboriginal communities
in other jurisdictions. However, AREVA noted that non-Inuit Aboriginal people would be considered
for employment in cases of interest and qualified candidacy, but that this would not necessarily lead
to preferential employment or other economic benefits.816
6.8.1 Summary of Key Issues
Key issues addressed here are the transportation of yellowcake by air, and the potential effects of the
project on caribou herds which cross boundaries.
Transportation of Yellowcake
AREVA’s initial project proposal anticipated two potential methods for shipment of yellowcake from
the Kiggavik site to southern Canada:

Direct air transport from the Kiggavik site to Churchill, Manitoba or Points North,
Saskatchewan. The yellowcake would then be shipped via rail (Churchill) or truck (Points
North). This option would be available for year-round shipping.

Truck transport to Baker Lake and shipment with returning barges to Churchill, Manitoba. The
yellowcake would then be shipped via rail. This option would only be viable during the barge
season, and therefore yellowcake would be shipped via air for the remainder of the year.817
814
FEIS, Volume 10, pp. 2-4 – 2-6.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 20.
816
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-32.
817
AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated, The Kiggavik Project, Project Proposal, November 2008, p. 2-55.
815
279
The proposal further noted that the:
The site will produce approximately 9,000 drums of yellowcake annually, which will be loaded
into sea-containers. […] It is therefore expected that 256 sea-containers will be shipped to the
south annually. Once in southern Canada, yellowcake will be transported to either a North
American refinery or to an eastern port for shipment to a European destination.
When the NIRB conducted its 2010 Scoping meetings, the marine transportation route was still
considered to be a component of the Project as proposed by AREVA:
Uranium ore concentrate, commonly referred to as yellowcake, will be transported by air or
may be transported by barge during the open water season to southern Canada.818
This was still the case in May of 2011, when the NIRB Guidelines for the Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Kiggavik Project (May 2011) were issued, which stated:
The dock at Baker Lake would serve as a transfer and storage facility for materials and supplies
en route to Kiggavik and/or as a transfer and storage facility for uranium concentrate product
(or more commonly known as yellowcake) to be shipped south.819
An airstrip will be constructed and operated at site for transportation of personnel and
yellowcake (uranium ore concentrate).
By the time the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to the NIRB by AREVA, the
marine transportation route had been abandoned in favour of an air transportation system entirely:
Yellowcake will be packaged and sealed in 55 gallon (206-L) steel drums. Each drum will hold
approximately 430 [kilogram] kg of yellowcake. With a maximum of 35 drums able to load in a
sea container, approximately 310 to 350 sea containers of yellowcake drums will be flown to
the south annually.
Hercules aircraft will transport yellowcake approximately 800 [kilometres] km from the
Kiggavik airstrip to Points North, Saskatchewan. On arrival in Points North, yellowcake will be
transferred from aircraft to truck-trailer or rail and then transported to a North American
refinery or to the Port of Montreal for shipment to a European destination.820
818
Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Scoping Meetings Summary Report for the NIRB’s Review of AREVA
Resources Canada Incorporated’s Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003), June 14, 2010, p. 1.
819
NIRB Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for AREVA Resources Inc.’s
Kiggavik Project (NIRB File No. 09MN003), May 3, 2011, p. B1.
820
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 38.
280
During the Pre-hearing Conference, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission requested a
commitment from AREVA to update the FEIS to clarify that the transportation of yellowcake via land in
Nunavut had been removed as an option.821
As part of the above commitment, AREVA provided this confirmation in the FEIS:
Community residents in Baker Lake were concerned about a very early project proposal which
involved transporting yellowcake to the community and subsequently barging the material out
the shipping route. This option is no longer being considered; the yellowcake will be
transported from the Kiggavik site by aircraft to Points North, Saskatchewan or another
destination with ground link to the south and then transported to refineries via land route by
truck. An airstrip will be constructed at the Kiggavik site (i.e. the Pointer Lake airstrip). Truck
transportation of yellowcake will be limited to transport from the Kiggavik site to the Pointer
Lake airstrip (assumed to be 10 km maximum with no water crossing).822
The FEIS made reference to the transportation of yellowcake from the aerodrome at the mine site to
Points North, Saskatchewan via air; and from there via ground transportation to Canadian ports as
follows:
Hercules aircraft will transport yellowcake approximately 800 km from the Kiggavik airstrip to
Points North, Saskatchewan. On arrival in Points North, yellowcake will be transferred from
aircraft to truck trailer and then transported to a North American refinery or to the Port of
Montreal for shipment to a European destination.
With respect to the shipment from Points North, Saskatchewan, to Canadian ports, the FEIS states:
To date, AREVA has shipped over 42000 tonnes of uranium (over 110 million pounds of
yellowcake) from its production sites in northern Saskatchewan to refineries in North America
and Europe for further processing. These shipments have experienced no major accidents or
spills. North American shipments are by sole use truck transport for the drums of yellowcake,
while shipments to Europe involve loading the drums into shipping containers at the
production site and then using a combination of truck, rail and ocean going cargo vessels to
transport the shipping containers to the refinery.823
The FEIS contained a transportation risk assessment as outlined in Appendix 10A contains an
Assessment of Risk and Consequence of Transportation Incidents Involving Uranium Ore Concentrates
along Ground Transportation Routes in Canada, which addressed the risk of transporting yellowcake
from Points North to ports in Canada.
With respect to transportation of yellowcake by truck within Nunavut, the FEIS states:
821
NIRB Pre-hearing Conference Decision for the Kiggavik Project, File No. 09MN003, July 5, 2013, Appendix 2, p.
6.
822
823
FEIS, Volume 10, Appendix 10A, p. E1.
FEIS, Volume 1, p. 13.
281
The transportation of yellowcake by truck within Nunavut is limited to travel between the mill
and the airstrip on the Kiggavik site. The combined frequency of crash and rollover along the
haul route between the Kiggavik Site and the airstrip was 4.7 x 10 -5. No significant adverse
environmental effects are expected as there is no water crossing along the route and any
release to ground can be contained and cleaned up effectively.824
In respect of transport of yellowcake by air, the risk analysis estimated that the chance of an aircraft
crash was extremely remote:
Aircraft crash frequencies were estimated based on the number of flight operations, and the
frequency that an aircraft will crash. The frequency of airplane crash into a large lake during
transportation of yellowcake to Points North is expected to be in the order of 10-6 to 10-5 per
year.825
A consequence analysis was conducted by AREVA to assess the potial consequence of an aircraft crash,
however remote. The consequence analysis assumed the probability that a plane might crash in a
remote area where it may take some time before emergency response crew reaches the crash site.
The consequence analysis also assumed the breach of all drums of yellowcake in all containers on
board the aircraft. An air crash on land, and an air crash into water, were both considered. Because of
the large number of water bodies into which a spill may occur, the assessment focused on the most
important water bodies based on size and proximity to representative communities (i.e., Thelon River
and Baker Lake).826 In relation to the crash on land, the analysis assumed that the released yellowcake
may be exposed on land, and a heavy storm may wash away the exposed yellowcake. In addition,
terrestrial receptors could be exposed to yellowcake prior to containment. The conclusions were that
the most severe consequences of a spill of yellowcake or hazardous materials would be realized if an
accidental spill occurred into a water body. The consequence analysis considered potential impacts on
terrestrial species, including caribou, aquatic species, and humans. As regards caribou, the analysis
indicated that caribou were mainly exposed to contaminants via atmospheric deposition on terrestrial
vegetation.
The FEIS concluded that:
With respect to human receptor, the predicted uranium concentrations in a large lake
immediately following a yellowcake spill would exceed the Canadian Drinking Water Quality
Guideline (Health Canada 2008) for uranium (0.02 mg/L) for a short duration. Though the
radiation doses to a toddler and child would be twice as high as that to an adult under the spill
scenario, in all cases, the dose estimates were well below the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission regulatory incremental dose limit of 1000 µSv/yr for members of the public as
well as the Health Canada dose constraint limit of 300 µSv/yr. In case of adverse water quality
following an accident, drinking water advisory will be in place to prevent the exposure of
human receptors to contaminated water during the response to the spill.827
824
FEIS, Volume 10, Appendix 10A, p. E-3.
FEIS, Volume 10, Appendix 10A, p. 4-15.
826
FEIS, Volume 10, Appendix 10A, p. 5-1.
827
FEIS, Volume 10, Appendix 10A, p. E-5.
825
282
A plain language discussion of this conclusion is located in AREVA’s Response to the final written
submissions:
AREVA acknowledges that product from Kiggavik will be transported by air over 500 km of
asserted Athabasca Denesuline territory before joining a land-based transportation network
which spans nearly 7500 kms of road and rail routes within Canada to bring uranium
concentrates to their destinations. AREVA notes that this transport will not require Projectspecific infrastructure. A risk assessment presented in Tier 3 Technical Appendix 10A,
Transportation Risk Assessment has identified the likelihood of an aircraft incident as low, and
an evaluation of the consequences of an aircraft incident, should an incident occur, concluded
there would be no significant adverse effects to the environmental health (including caribou)
or human health. Transportation of uranium concentrate will be in accordance with the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations and the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear
Substances Regulations. An Emergency Response Assistance Plan for the transportation of
yellowcake, including air transport, must be approved by Transport Canada prior to
shipment.828
The CNSC assessed the risk analysis conducted by AREVA from the perspective of human health. It
pointed out that AREVA also assessed the potential impact to members of the public for
transportation accident scenarios. The CNSC was satisfied that AREVA’s assessment of uranium
exposure for transportation accident scenarios was adequate.829
The final written submission by the Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation (AD) addressed the
consequence of an air crash from its perspective:
The flight path of this aircraft would be almost entirely over Athabasca Denesuline traditional
territory. This is a critical area, where the AD practice their culture and earn their livelihood.
The risk of one of these aircrafts crashing onto land or water would be critically and
irreversibly destructive to the entire ecosystem of the area. Water systems connect
throughout the north, and containment would be difficult, if not impossible. In addition, the
AD are seriously concerned how the barren ground caribou populations would be adversely
affected if such a catastrophe would occur. AREVA, at this time, is unable to answer how a
catastrophic spill of this magnitude could be cleaned up effectively, especially in such remote
locations. Aware of the potential problem they are apparently working on these calculations.
The risk of losing a healthy ecosystem for countless generations is not something that the AD
are willing to gamble with.830
The Transport Canada (TC) Final Written Submissions pointed out that companies who ship yellowcake
require an approved Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP). These plans are not created until
the regulatory phase of the project, i.e. Emergency Response Assistance Plans are reviewed upon
receipt by TC and prior to an approval being issued for the ERAP. Such plans are thereafter reviewed
828
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 2-34.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 22.
830
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 10-11.
829
283
and approved annually by Transport Canada. TC pointed out that, in addition, the packaging and
transport of radioactive materials is subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations,
administered by TC, and the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations (PTNSR),
administered by the CNSC. Anyone who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods
must be adequately trained and hold a training certificate in accordance with Part 6 of the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.
Neither Fisheries and Oceans Canada nor the Environment Canada final written submissions
addressed the question of spill response or potential consequence associated with an air crash during
transport of yellowcake, with potential escape of yellowcake into a fish bearing water environment.
The Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association joint Final Written Submission
stated:
It is believed that the establishment of an air transport route and shipper for uranium
concentrate has no precedents in the industry and may require some special requirements for
emergency response in light of the inaccessible terrain that will underlie the major part of the
flight path.831
Caribou
AREVA had included the expanded range boundaries in its analysis of cumulative and transboundary
effects and included the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.832 AREVA’s
position on transboundary effects as regards caribou was that:
The assessment considered the biophysical impacts on caribou and concluded “predicted
project effects on caribou include direct mortality (collisions), direct and indirect habitat loss
(Project footprint, dust and sensory disturbance), possible avoidance of Project area but no
alteration to migration patterns and no change to health”. The absence of significant Project
and cumulative environmental effects removes the potential for any significant transboundary
effects.
Within its final written submission, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board
(BQCMB) noted that “the true value of caribou for Aboriginal peoples is reflected in the strong
traditional, cultural and spiritual relationship that exists between the people and these animals [and
that] this relationship is an essential part of the traditional harvester’s identity”.833 The BQCMB then
identified the following key areas of concern regarding potential project related impacts to harvesting
and further identified potential transboundary effects on caribou harvesters outside the Nunavut
Settlement Area:

The availability of caribou for harvest in AREVA’s regional assessment area: in areas between
the existing and currently planned mines and roads and in areas with likely future
development;
831
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Kivalliq Inuit Association, Final Written Submission Appendix 2, January
19, 2015, p. 2.
832
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, pp. 2-33 - 2-35.
833
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 11.
284

The access of harvesters to caribou hunting areas;

The safety of caribou meat for consumption;

The ability for harvesters to feed their families with caribou meat;

The ability for the transmission of knowledge regarding hunting and land use between
generations; and

The ability of harvesters to hunt caribou as a way to maintain their cultural and spiritual
connections to the land.834
In its final written submission, the AD noted concerns regarding the potential for the Project to impact
its land users and harvesters. The AD raised concerns that the caribou range it utilizes, as well as its
way of life and use of the land, including the ability to hunt, trap, fish, gather and practice cultural
activities, would be adversely impacted if an accident were to occur when transporting yellowcake
across AD territory. The AD noted concern that the health and resulting meat of the caribou herds it
hunts would be adversely impacted if a spill were to occur and caribou was no longer safe to eat. The
AD added that in the event of a spill it would assume significant risk and no benefit from the Project.
In addition, the AD noted multiple concerns pertaining to potential Project related impacts to caribou,
specifically the Qamanirjuaq herd, its primary source of caribou meat, which migrate to AD territory.
The Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN)835 noted that although AANDC and the NIRB had identified
the LKDFN as having “legitimate interest in the Project” it was not identified in AREVA’s socioeconomic assessment or in the proposed human resources development plan. The LKDFN
recommended that additional investigation into whether potential Project effects on caribou would
result in socio-economic impacts to the LKDFN communities be undertaken. In its response to written
submissions, AREVA noted that it had documented its engagement with the LKDFN both within the
FEIS and as part of its response to written submissions.836
Within its final written submission, the LKDFN noted the hunting ban on the Bathurst caribou herd and
resulting reduced numbers in the Beverly and Bathurst herds, and that consequently hunters have
been moving east to hunt, into areas where the Qamanirjuaq herd is located. The LKDFN noted that
this additional hunting pressure should have been considered when AREVA assessed transboundary
and cumulative effects. In response to written submissions, AREVA noted that its conclusion of no
significant transboundary effects was supported by the assessment and that the predicted Project
effects were presented and cumulative effects were screened and assessed including the potential allseason access road option. AREVA acknowledged uncertainties and that there are many factors that
could influence caribou populations and it had proposed strategies and activities to mitigate impacts
to caribou. During the Final Hearing, the LKDFN noted that
The Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation does not believe that the AREVA has done enough to protect
the Qamanirjuaq caribou herd, and we do not believe that the AREVA study was performed
correctly or adequately. The Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation is concerned about how close the
834
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 11-12.
Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, pp. 6-7.
836
AREVA Response to Final Written Submissions, February 13, 2015, p. 431.
835
285
proposed mine is to the Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary, a place sacred to the Lutsel K'e
community.837
The LKDFN and AD noted the extensive use of the areas south and west of the project area, with the
AD using areas throughout the proposed flight path of yellowcake to Points North, providing
testimony of how traditions and spirituality were tied to the migration of the caribou. During the Final
Hearing, the NIRB staff requested AREVA to provide additional clarification on whether the effects
assessment presented in the FEIS had taken into consideration the recent hunting ban on Baffin Island,
and the potential for increased access that the roads could provide increased harvesting pressure from
the growing market in the Kivalliq region for shipment of caribou meat to the Baffin region; AREVA
confirmed that its assessment had not taken the Baffin Island hunting ban into consideration, or any
potential increased pressure on the herd.838
The AD Final Written Submission stated that inadequate consideration had been given to the AD due
to the perception that this Aboriginal group was located too far away from the proposed
development. It stated that its concerns about potential impacts to AD land users and harvesters, and
to caribou populations, habitats, health and movements, were discounted as a result. 839 It
recommended a re-assessment of the results of the FEIS for significance of impact to caribou from the
perspective of the AD land users and harvesters. The AD submitted that such a reassessment “may
result in a significant impact to the trans-boundary, cumulative and biophysical environment that was
not considered prior.”840
6.8.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
As regards the transboundary effects associated with a potential air crash and consequential release of
yellowcake into terrestrial or aquatic environments, the Board accepts the scientific aspects of
AREVA’s consequence analysis. However, the Board notes that the consequence analysis did not have
sufficient regard to human factors, especially avoidance behaviours of Inuit and First Nations peoples
in the event of a crash event. For Aboriginal peoples, in particular, the Board finds that avoidance
behaviours are likely to increase the human consequence of a crash event, and that this may have a
more severe consequence on the exercise of Aboriginal rights than was appreciated in the
transportation risk assessment conducted by AREVA. This is especially so when Inuit languages do not
have terms necessary for effective communication of radiation risk. The Board finds that the
consequence of Aboriginal avoidance behaviours may extend well beyond the actual plume or
contamination boundaries of a spill event. The Board recommends that future transportation risk
assessments include human avoidance factors in the assessment of consequence. The Board also
recommends that proponents develop plans to monitor the boundaries of the actual plume or
contamination boundaries of a spill event, and to communicate those boundaries in plain Aboriginal
languages on a real time basis, in order to mitigate the potential consequence of human avoidance
behaviours.
837
D. Enzoe, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 9, 2015, p.
1318, lines 4-13.
838
M. Setterington, AREVA, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 4, 2015, p. 255, lines 13-19.
839
Athabasca Denesuline NéNé Land Corporation, Final Written Submission, January 17, 2015, p. 4.
840
Athabasca Denesuline, NéNé Land Corporation, Final Written Submissions, January 17, 2015, p. 6.
286
The key issue as regards transboundary effects is the limitation of the information base respecting
caribou cited earlier in this report. The information base on which to make thorough predictions
respecting transboundary effects is too limited. The NIRB recommends that the Minister take the
initiative to foster and facilitate the development or enhancement of programs which resolve this
uncertainty, and so facilitate effective decision-making in future.
287
7.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE MINISTER
The NIRB recognizes the mineral potential in Nunavut and the potential for uranium mining in the
Kivalliq region in particular. The NIRB also recognizes the enduring significance of caribou, fish and
marine mammals for Nunavummiut, especially the beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement. Nunavummiut of the Kivalliq region of Nunavut have no familiarity with uranium mining,
and the Inuit languages have no words which accurately capture the concepts of radioactivity. The
NIRB recommends that action be taken on the following matters which will contribute to its future
capacity to make good decisions having regard to its obligations under article 12.5.5 of the NLCA:

Development of Inuit languages applicable to uranium and uranium mining by the Inuit
Language Authority;

development of further baseline information respecting caribou population trends, as well as
baseline information pertinent to the prediction of project activities upon marine wildlife
populations of significance to the residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area;

advancement of educational programs which would enable Inuit to be qualified for, and so to
take advantage of, employment opportunities associated with uranium mining beyond limited
entry level positions; and

monitoring programs which can fully demonstrate to the beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land
Claim Agreement that their reliance on caribou, fish and marine wildlife as a source of food
remains untainted by industrial development of uranium in the region.
288
8.
SUMMARY OF BOARD CONCLUSIONS
Some parties spoke about the possibility of having both a vibrant mining economy in the Kivalliq
region, and also a continuing capacity to harvest caribou, fish and marine mammals. One of the
community representatives put it this way: “We don't ask much. All we want is to maintain our
lifestyle.”841
This hearing has made it apparent that, fundamentally, the NIRB requires more scientifically robust
information on which to base decisions. The NIRB’s obligation include the obligations under 12.5.5
NIRB, are to take into account
(a) whether the project would enhance and protect the existing and future well-being of the
residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, taking into account the interests
of other Canadians;
(b) whether the project would unduly prejudice the ecosystemic integrity of the Nunavut
Settlement Area;
(c) whether the proposal reflects the priorities and values of the residents of the Nunavut
Settlement Area;
(d) steps which the proponent proposes to take to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts;
In this case it was apparent to NIRB that there is a lack of scientific data on which to make base
decisions. The lack of scientific certainty about population health of caribou herds in the Kivalliq
region, or about fish and marine wildlife populations of significance to the residents and communities
of the Nunavut Settlement Area do not support long-term economic, social and cultural interests of
Inuit and Nunavummiut.
In this case, the NIRB found that the absence of a definite start date for the Project has compounded
the uncertainties in the assessment of project effects upon the enduring significance of caribou, fish
and marine wildlife for Nunavummiut, especially the residents and communities of the Nunavut
Settlement Area, arising from the absence of baseline information. These uncertainties are such that,
in the view of the Board, the onus of proof has not been met, and the Project should not proceed at
this time.
841
J. (Joan) Scottie, Baker Lake, NIRB Final Hearing File No. 09MN003 Transcript, March 10, 2015, p. 1501, lines
1-2.
289
APPENDIX A: List of Exhibits from the Kiggavik Project Final
Hearing
Exhibit Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Exhibit Description
Notice of Motion of Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization to amend the agenda
Notice of Motion of Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization to suspend the review
Affidavit of Richard Aksawnee Sworn March 3,
2015
Argument
Party Tendering Exhibit
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Documents supporting the Motions, consisting of:
Baker Lake Hunters and
 Letter to NIRB dated January 14, 2015, from Trappers Organization
Richard Aksawnee, Chair, Baker Lake Hunters
and Trappers Organization
 Resolution KWB/0223/2015/002 of the Kivalliq
Wildlife Board dated February 26, 2015
 Two letters, both dated February 19, 2015, to
Richard Aksawnee from Douglas Aggark,
Chairman, Aqigiq Hunters and Trappers
Organization
 Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, Final Written
Submission #1
 BQCMB Motions in support of Baker Lake HTO
concerns re Kiggavik Project (20 November
2014) from draft minutes of the fall 2014
Board meeting
Powerpoint Entitled Introduction Kiggavik Project, AREVA Resources Canada
Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Lake, Incorporated
Nunavut
Powerpoint Entitled Atmospheric Environment AREVA Resources Canada
Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, Incorporated
2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
Powerpoint Entitled Terrestrial Environment AREVA Resources Canada
Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, Incorporated
2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
PowerPoint Entitled Aquatic Environment Kiggavik AREVA Resources Canada
Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Incorporated
Lake, Nunavut
Powerpoint Entitled Marine Environment Kiggavik AREVA Resources Canada
Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Incorporated
Lake, Nunavut
Powerpoint Entitled Engagement and IQ Kiggavik AREVA Resources Canada
Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Incorporated
Lake, Nunavut
B-1
Exhibit Number
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Exhibit Description
Powerpoint Entitled Socio-Economic Environment
Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14,
2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
Powerpoint Entitled Human Health Kiggavik
Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker
Lake, Nunavut
Powerpoint Entitled Accidents and Malfunctions
Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14,
2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
NTI Verbal Presentation NIRB Final Public Hearing –
Kiggavik Uranium Project
Kivalliq Inuit Association Review of Kiggavik Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Memorandum dated February 26, 2015, entitled
New Evidence for Kiggavik NIRB Hearings – Utility
of Zooplankton for Aquatic Effects Monitoring
Powerpoint Presentation Entitled Kiggavik Uranium
Mining Project, Final Hearing, Government of
Nunavut
Government of Nunavut Uranium Policy Statement
Powerpoint Entitled Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development Canada, Final Hearing for
AREVA Resource Canada Inc’s Proposed Kiggavik
Uranium Mine Project
Powerpoint Entitled Transport Canada Nunavut
Impact Review Board Presentation of Technical
Submission AREVA Resources Canada Inc. Kiggavik
Uranium Mine Project March 2015
PowerPoint entitled NRCan’s Final Hearing
Presentation: Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project
Document Entitled Assessment of the Proposed
Winter Road Traffic on Aquatic Wildlife, with a
Focus on Effects on Fish, and An Assessment of
Differential Melting of the Winter Road on Baker
Lake, and A Cross-reference to an Assessment of
Accidents and Malfunctions relevant to the
Proposed Winter Road Option
Government of Alberta, Field Guide to Working
Safely on Ice Covers
AREVA’s Response to Environment Canada’s
Request for Effluent sub lethal toxicity testing
results for AREVA’s McClean Lake Operation
Follow-up on AREVA’s response to Comment EC
6.3.06
Powerpoint Presentation Entitled Kiggavik Project
Final Hearing Presentation
Party Tendering Exhibit
AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
Nunavut
Tunngavik
Incorporated
Kivalliq Inuit Association
Kivalliq Inuit Association
Government of Nunavut
Government of Nunavut
Aboriginal
Affairs
and
Northern
Development
Canada
Transport Canada
Natural Resources Canada
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
Canadian
Nuclear
Commission
Safety
Canada
B-2
Exhibit Number
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Exhibit Description
Powerpoint Presentation entitled Environment
Canada’s Presentation to the Nunavut Impact
Review Board Regarding AREVA Resources Canada
Inc’s Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project
Powerpoint Entitled Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project, Presentation to the
Nunavut Impact Review Board
Nunavut
Makitagunarnginingit
PowerPoint
presentation dated 2015-03-07
Hamlet of Baker Lake Presentation to the NIRB
Final Hearing
Presentation to Nunavut Review Board Final
Hearing for AREVA Resources Proposed Kiggavik
Uranium Mine
Affidavit of David Toolooktook
Party Tendering Exhibit
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Nunavut Makitagunarngningit
Hamlet of Baker Lake
Baker Lake Hunters
Trappers Organization
and
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Affidavit of Timothy Tunguaq
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
BQCMB Presentation, Kiggavik Final Hearing, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq
Technical Session
Caribou Management Board
Athabasca Denesuline Comments on the Proposed Athabasca Denesuline Né Né
Kiggavik Uranium Mine EIC March 2015 Land Corporation
(PowerPoint presentation and enlarged print out of
that PowerPoint presentation)
Presentation
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson
Table 2.2: Nuclear Power by region in 2030, from AREVA Resources Canada
The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2030 Incorporated
(World Nuclear Association, 2014)
Figure 2.11 Projected Annual World Uranium AREVA Resources Canada
Production Capability to 2035 Compared With Incorporated
Projected World Reactor Requirements, from
Uranium 2014:
Resources, Production and
Demand (OECD, 2014)
PowerPoint Presentation Entitled Introduction, AREVA Resources Canada
Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, Incorporated
2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
Selection of Graphics Enlarged for Easier AREVA Resources Canada
Readability
Incorporated
PowerPoint Presentation Entitled Kiggavik and AREVA Resources Canada
Sissons Sites Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March Incorporated
2 to 14, 2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
PowerPoint presentation entitled Baker Lake AREVA Resources Canada
Facility and Marine Shipping Kiggavik Project, Final Incorporated
Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
PowerPoint presentation entitled: Access Road AREVA Resources Canada
Options Winter and All Season Kiggavik Project, Incorporated
B-3
Exhibit Number
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Exhibit Description
Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Lake,
Nunavut
PowerPoint presentation entitled Non-routine
Operations (including Transport Risk Assessment)
Kiggavik Project, Final Hearing, March 2 to 14,
2015, Baker Lake, Nunavut
PowerPoint presentation entitled Cumulative and
Transboundary Assessment & Environmental
Management and Monitoring, Kiggavik Project,
Final Hearing, March 2 to 14, 2015, Baker Lake,
Nunavut
NTI Verbal Presentation
NTI/KIA PowerPoint: The Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS), the Kiggavik Project
Summary
PowerPoint Presentation entitled Final Hearing
Uranium Development Policy
Party Tendering Exhibit
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Nunavut
Tunngavik
Incorporated/ Kivalliq Inuit
Association
Government of Nunavut
Nunavut
Tunngavik
Incorporated
Map of land ownership associated with the winter Aboriginal
Affairs
and
road
Northern
Development
Canada
Map of uranium lands
Community Representative
Community Vitality Study
AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated
CNSC Staff Report on the Performance of Uranium Canadian
Nuclear
Safety
Fuel Cycle and Processing Facilities: 2012 (April Commission
2014)
EC Powerpoint Presentation to Community Environment Canada
Roundtable
BQCMB Presentation to Community Roundtable Beverly and Qamanirjuaq
(Digital Copy Only at Time of Hearing)
Caribou Management Board
Bathurst Herd Statistics
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Information on Suspension of Joint Review Panel Baker Lake Hunters and
struck to Consider the Proposes Marathon Trappers Organization
Platinum Group Metals and Copper Mine Project
Caribou Protection Measures for Road Licences Aboriginal
Affairs
and
(From Keewatin Land Use Plan)
Northern
Development
Canada
Resolution KWB/0223/2015/002 of the Kivalliq Baker Lake Hunters and
Wildlife Board dated February 26, 2015
Trappers Organization
Presentation of Paula Kigjugalik Hughson to Paula Kigjugalik Hughson
Community Roundtable
Open Letter to the Leaders of Nunavut on the Nunavut Makitagunarngningit
health implications of opening the territory to
uranium mining
B-4
Exhibit Number
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Exhibit Description
Press Release from Makivik Corporation
Speaking Notes
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Response to
An Article in Canadian Family Physician entitled
“Doctors Misdiagnose the Scientific Evidence on
‘Uranium Mining and Health’”
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Publication
entitled Radon and Health (January 2012)
Four maps, displayed on wall of Final Hearing
room, showing caribou range and movements
using most recent GN information (maps therefore
slightly altered from those included in FEIS)
Map Kiggavik Project Areas relative to the Hamlet
of Baker Lake
Petition
Maps
Party Tendering Exhibit
Nunavut Makitagunarngningit
Nunavut Makitagunarngningit
AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
Canada
AREVA Resources Canada
Incorporated
Public
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson
Bundle of documents consisting of:

Nunavut Planning Commission Minutes of
Meeting #64, June 27, 2007

Nunavut Planning Commission document
dated December 6, 2006, re Keewatin Regional
Land Use Uranium Meeting Implementation of
Terms 3.5 and 3.6

Appendix III of the AREVA Resources
Canada Inc.
Project Proposal, consisting of
Resolutions of the Kivalliq Inuit Association and
the Hamlets of Arviat, Baker Lake, Chesterfield
Inlet, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay,
and Whale Cove

Pages 2-477 to 2-488 from AREVA
Responses to Final Written Submission February
13, 2015
Joint Submission on Suggested Terms and AREVA & Government of
Conditions
Nunavut
Joint Submissions on Commitments
AREVA & Government of
Nunavut
Recommended Final Terms and Conditions
Nunavut
Tunngavik
Incorporated & Kivalliq Inuit
Association
Chart showing recommended final terms and Nunavut
Tunngavik
conditions
Incorporated & Kivalliq Inuit
Association
Chart showing status of Environment Canada Environment Canada
recommendations
Information on the design and implementation of Canadian
Nuclear
Safety
B-5
Exhibit Number
77
78
Exhibit Description
atmospheric monitoring programs with specific
referral to the following:
 Design and Development
 Limits, Criteria, Testing Standards and
Performance Indicators
 Review and Approval
 Receiver of the Data
 Audits and Compliance
 Notification
 Who Would Enforce What in Nunavut?
Motion of Hamlet of Baker Lake
Declaration of Cooperation dated March 11, 2015
79
 Petition from January 2015 and
80
 Draft Question for new Petition
Closing Comments
Party Tendering Exhibit
Commission
Hamlet of Baker Lake
Baker Lake Hunters and
Trappers Organization
Paula Kigjugalik Hughson
AREVA Resources
Incorporated
Canada
B-6
APPENDIX B: List of Acronyms
AANDC
AD
ADNT
AEMP
ALARA
ARD
ATV
AQMP
BQCMB
CARC
CCME
CFOP
COPC
CNSC
CSA
DFO
DIO
EC
EEM
EIS
ERA
FEIS
GDP
GHG
GN
GN-CH
GOC
HC
HHERA
HHRA
HHS
HTO
IIBA
INAC
ISO
IR
KI
KIA
LAA
LKDFN
Makita
MEWG
MMER
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation
Athabasca Denesuliné Negotiation Team
Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
Acid Rock Drainage
All-Terrain Vehicles
Air Quality Monitoring Plan
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board
Canadian Arctic Research Council
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Conceptual Fish Offsetting Plan
Constituents of Potential Concern
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Canadian Standards Association
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Designated Inuit Association
Environment Canada
Environmental Effects Monitoring
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Risk Assessment
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Gross Domestic Product
Greenhouse Gas
Government of Nunavut
Government of Nunavut - Department of Culture and Heritage
Government of Canada
Health Canada
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hunter Harvesting Studies
Hunters and Trappers Organization
Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
International Organization for Standardization
Information Request
Key Indicators
Kivalliq Inuit Association
Local Assessment Area
Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation
Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit
Marine Environmental Working Group
Metal Mining Effluent Regulation
C-1
MMO
NGMP
NIRB
NLCA
NORDREG
NPA
NPC
NRCan
NTI
NWB
NWT
OPEP
OPPP
PC
PHC
PM
RAA
RO
SARA
SEAC
SEMC
TC
TDS
TMF
TRV
TSS
VC
VEC
VSEC
WTP
WMMP
ZOI
Marine Mammal Observer
Nunavut General Monitoring Program
Nunavut Impact Review Board
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone
Navigation Protection Act
Nunavut Planning Commission
Natural Resources Canada
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Nunavut Water Board
Northwest Territories
Oil Pollution Emergency Plan
Oil Pollution Prevention Plan
Parks Canada
Pre-hearing Conference
Particulate matter
Regional Assessment Area
Reverse Osmosis
Species at Risk Act
Socio-Economic Assessment Committee
Socio-Economic Monitoring Committee
Transport Canada
Total Dissolved Solids
Tailings Management Facility
Toxicity Reference Value
Total Suspended Solid
Valued Components
Valued Environmental Component
Valued Socio-Economic Component
Water Treatment Plant
Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan
Zone of Influence
C-2