decommissioning of uranium mine tailings management areas in the elliot lake area

69 Pages·1997·1.46 MB·English

la rleadtenFe mtnnoermisvsneEssA dna weiveRssecorP
DECOMMISSIONING OF
URANIUM MINE TAILINGS
MANAGEMENT AREAS IN
THE ELLIOT LAKE AREA
Canad
0 Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1996
NBSI : O-662-24626-8
No. de cat. : nE l/25-501 E699
TOILLE EKAL MUINARU ENI MSGNILIASTAERA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL
ehT elbaruonoH oigreS ihcraM
retsiniM fo ehttnemnorivnE
esuoH fsonommoC
,awattOoiratnO
AIK 6A0
ehT elbaruonoH ennA nalleLcM
retsiniM fo larutaNsecruoseR
esuoH fsonommoC
,awattOoiratnO
lK A6A0
Dr. A.J. Bishop
tnediserP
cimotA ygrenE lortnoCdraoB
,awattOoiratnO
lK P 9S5
nI ecnadrocca htiw eht desiver smret fo ecnerefer deussi ni yluJ ,4991eht
latnemnorivnE tnemssessA lenaP sah detelpmoc sti weiver fo eht slasoporpot
noissimmoc emduinaru enim sgnilia ttnemeganam saera raen toillE.ekaL
nO flaheb fo eht ,lenap I ma desaelp ot timbus siht troper rofruoy
.noitaredisnoc
sruoY,ylerecnis
divaD doowkriK
nosrepriahC
toillE ekaL muinarU eniM sgniliaTsaerA
latnemnorivnE tnemssessAlenaP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 .O INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.0 PROJECT SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 TNEMNORIVNE FO EHT TNEPRES REVIRDEHSRETAW ................................................................. 4
2.2 TROHS YRAMMUS FO HCAEETIS ............................................................................................. 4
3.2 YTINUMMOCSCITSIRETCARAHC .............................................................................................. 9
2.3.1 City of Elliot Lake ............................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2 Serpent River First Nation .................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 htroN erohSytinummoC ...................................................................................................... 9
3.0 PRIMARY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.3 elbatpeccAstimiL .............................................................................................................. 10
SE CD RRYUAR OZA2SAM.HI3RP AND CONTROLS .......................................................................... 11
1.2.3 dicA kcoR eganiarD )DRA( .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.3 lacigoloidaRerusopxE ........................................................................................................ 12
3.2.3 Security of Waste Storage Facilities ..................................................................................... 12
3.3 GNINOISSI M:MSOECVEIDTANRETLA EHT CISABSNOITPO ....................................................... 12
3.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.3.2 Disposal Options ............................................................................................................... 13
1.2.3.3lareneG ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3.3 eniMlasopsiD ............................................................................................................. 13
3.3.2.3 Deep-Lake Disposal ...................................................................................................... 13
3.3.2.4 Permanent Treatment of Wastes .................................................................................... 14
3.3.3 Containment Options ......................................................................................................... 14
1.3.3.3lareneG ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.3.3.2 Dry Containment ......................................................................................................... 15
3.3.3.3 Saturated containment ................................................................................................. 15
4.3 EHT YTIUTEPREP-NMIELBORP ................................................................................................. 16
3.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 16
2.4.3ecnaligiV .......................................................................................................................... 71
1.2.4.3 gnirotinoM dnaecnanetniaM ......................................................................................... 17
3.4.2.2 Research .................................................................................................................... 17
3.4.3 ssenderaperP .................................................................................................................... 17
4.0 IDLE SITES .................................................................................................................. 18
LARE N1E.G4 ............................................................................................................................... 81
4.2 CURRENT STATUS ................................................................................................................. 18
3.4 E VLIATTANLEEMRNOSRTICVANPEMI ..................................................................................... 18
5.0 DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.5LARENEG .........,.,.,,...,...................,....................................,.*............................,..,...,....,,......, 20
2.5 OIR MOGLADETIMIL ,..,..............................~...............................................................,.,...,...,, 20
5.2.1 General ...........,..............,...............................,...........................................,...............,..,.. 20
2.2.5 ekriuQAMW ...,....,....,.....,....,..........,..................................................................I..........,.. 20
3.2.5 lenaPAMW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..~...........................................~......................................... 22
5.3 NOSINED SENIMDETIMIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................................I.. 22
5.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................~.. 22
2.3.5 nosineDAMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3.5 kcornatS AMT . . . . . . ..I......................................................................................................... 24
6.0 ANALYSIS OF DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSALS ............................................................ 28
6.1 DECOMMISSIONING PHASES ................................................................................................... 28
6.1 I. General ............................................................................................................................ 28
6.1.2 Short- and Long-term Phases .............................................................................................. 28
6.1.3 Transitional Phase ............................................................................................................. 28
6.2 TECHNICAL MATTERS ............................................................................................................ 28
6.2.1 Stability and Longevity of Containment Structures ................................................................. 28
6.2.1.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 28
6.2.1.2 Quirke ..AMW ............................................................................................................. 30
6.2.1.3 Panel WMA ................................................................................................................ 30
6.2.1.4 Denison TMA-1 and TMA-2 .......................................................................................... 31
6.2.1.5 Stanrock TMA ............................................................................................................ 31
6.2.2 Stability and Longevity of Water Cover ................................................................................. 31
6.2.3 Effluent Treatment and Quality ............................................................................................ 33
6.2.4 Seepage and Groundwater .................................................................................................. 34
6.2.4.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 34
6.2.4.2 Quirke WMA ............................................................................................................... 35
6.2.4.3 Panel WMA ................................................................................................................ 35
6.2.4.4 Denison TMA .............................................................................................................. 36
6.2.4.5 Stanrock TMA ............................................................................................................ 36
6.2.5 Development of Active Ecological Systems ........................................................................... 36
6.2.6 Land-use Controls ............................................................................................................. 38
6.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 38
6.3.1 City of Elliot Lake .............................................................................................................. 38
6.3.2 Serpent River First Nation ................................................................................................... 38
6.3.3 North Shore Community ..................................................................................................... 39
7.0 FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 40
7.1 MAJOR ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 40
7.1.1 Operations, Monitoring and Maintenance .............................................................................. 40
7.1.2 Knowledge Acquisition and Research ................................................................................... 40
7.1.3 Unforeseen Circumstances ................................................................................................. 41
7.2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ....................................................................................................... 41
7.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 41
7.2.2 Hard versus Soft Assurances .............................................................................................. 41
7.2.3 Dedicated Funding ............................................................................................................. 43
7.2.4 Three Funding Requirements ............................................................................................... 43
7.2.4.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 43
7.2.4.2 Operations, Monitoring and Maintenance ........................................................................ 43
7.2.4.3 Knowledge Acquisition and Research ............................................................................. 43
7.2.4.4 Emergencies and Acts of God ....................................................................................... 44
7.3 MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS ....................................................................................................... 44
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
XIDNEPP AA - LENAPSEIHPARGOIB ............................................................................................ 52
XIDN EBPPA - SMRET FOECNEREFER .......................................................................................... 53
XIDNEPPA C - CILBUP GNIRAEHSTNAPICITRAP ............................................................................ 55
XIDNEPPA D - MUDNARO MFTEON MENMEEE EWARTDGEAABNAC D.N.AOIRATNO ...................... .56
XIDNE PEPA - YRAMMUS FO EHT YROTALUGERTNEMNORIVNE .................................................... 60
XI DFNEPPA - YEK WEIVER STNEMUCOD DNASECNEREFER .......................................................... 61
XIDNEPPA G - SNOITAIVERBBA ................................................................................................... 62
XIDNEPPA H - STNEMGDELWONKCA ........................................................................................... 63
ERUGIF:1 TOILLE EKAL DNAAERA .............................................................................................. 5
ERUGIF:2 TNEPRES REVIRNISAB ................................................................................................ 6
ERUGIF:3 ETSAW TNEMEGANAMSAERA ..................................................................................... 8
ERUGIF:4 EKRIUQ AMW ETISNALP ............................................................................................ 21
ERUGIF:5 LENAP AMW ETISNALP .............................................................................................. 23
ERUGIF:6 NOSINED AMT ETISNALP ........................................................................................... 25
ERUGIF:7 KCORNATS AMT ETISNALP ........................................................................................ 26
ERUGIF:8 GNINOI SSSEISMAMHOPCED DNASNOITAREPO ........................................................... 50
Executive Summary 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Given the nature of the long-term hazards of the tailings, the
panel has set out a number of recommendations that seek to
In February 1993, proposals for the decommissioning of four ensure that effective containment is established for the
uranium tailings management areas near Elliot Lake, Ontario tailings; that an extensive monitoring, maintenance and
were referred to the Minister of the Environment for public research program is developed to ensure proper operation and
review by an independent panel. safety in perpetuity; and that an appropriate management
regime is established that includes adequate financial support
Rio Algom Limited is seeking licences from the Atomic Energy for the care and maintenance programs, with significant
Control Board (AECB) to decommission its ekriuQ and Panel involvement of the local community.
waste management areas. Denison Mines Limited is seeking
licences to decommission the Denison and kcornatS tailings To establish an effective containment system for the wastes,
management areas. The four sites are associated with the panel concludes that the tailings must be permanently
uranium mines that operated in the last 40 years but are now contained in such a way as to insulate them from concurrent
closed. Together, the four waste management areas contain exposure to air and water, and to prevent their dispersion into
approximately 130 million tonnes of tailings. Waste the environment. In the Elliot Lake environment, the best way
management areas associated with nine other mines in the to do this is to keep the reactive tailings permanently water
area contain roughly 35 million tonnes of tailings. saturated.
A three-member panel, consisting of Mr. David doowkriK The panel recommends that the proponents’ proposals,
(Chairperson), Dr. laguoD htaerCcM and Mr. Tom Peters designed to achieve such permanent saturation, should form
(members), was appointed in September 1993 to conduct the the basis for developing the details of a decommissioning
review. licence. However, the panel also recommends that there be a
number of conditions that should be incorporated into the
In December 1993, the panel held public meetings in Elliot licensing process.
Lake and Sudbury, and on the Serpent River First Nation
Reserve, to receive comments about the scope of issues that The decommissioning licences should ezingocer three separate
should be addressed in the review. Following that, and decommissioning phases. In the first short-term phase, the
revision of the panel’s terms of reference by the Minister of containment systems will be put in place, and their stable
the Environment, the panel issued the final guidelines operation to design standards will be demonstrated. The
document that served as the basis for the environmental transitional phase that will follow must be of sufficient
impact statements that were completed by both proponents duration to permit the effectiveness of the systems to be
(the two mining companies). verified over a range of climatic and other operating
conditions, and any desirable adjustments to be implemented.
In November 1995, after a period of public review of the Only when the long-term phase begins will the proponents be
environmental impact statements and the receipt of additional permitted to seek the transfer to government of their
information from the proponents, the panel held public management responsibilities.
hearings in Elliot Lake and Sudbury. In January 1996, public
hearings were held on the Serpent River First Nation Reserve, Given the permanent nature of the hazards presented by the
and a final session was held in Elliot Lake. These public tailings, the panel recommends that an adequate containment
hearings provided opportunities for individuals, organizations system must be supported in perpetuity by effective care and
and government representatives to submit their views and maintenance programs. Such programs must include vigilant
opinions, in both oral presentations and written submissions, monitoring, maintenance, repair and, as necessary, system
on the environmental, technical and socio-economic modification in the light of experience and technological
implications of the decommissioning projects. These hearings advances. There should also be a capability to repair promptly
greatly assisted the panel in developing its findings. major failures caused by exceptional unforeseen events.
The panel reached a number of conclusions and formulated a The longevity of the tailings hazard must also be considered in
number of recommendations that are presented in Section 8 of the context of inevitable uncertainties regarding the detailed
this report and that are briefly summarized below. behaviour and long-term evolution of the complex ecological
systems associated with the areas. The panel recommends
The tailings of the Elliot Lake uranium mines present a that curiosity-driven research be supported as a central and
perpetual environmental hazard. The tailings contain sulphide critical element of the long-term monitoring approach, to
minerals, which generate acid when exposed to air and water provide early insights into actual behaviour. In addition, the
concurrently. They also contain various heavy metals, panel considers that there is an obligation on all parties to
including radioactive isotopes of thorium and radium, the ensure that important knowledge that can be gained from
solubility of which is increased when exposed to acidic these decommissioning projects is disseminated and utilized as
conditions. Radioactive contaminants are an important public widely as possible. Therefore, the panel recommends the
concern. creation of a permanent endowment fund to support research
associated with the Elliot Lake mine waste facilities.
2 Executive Summary
The panel also believes that the environmental impacts The panel believes that community involvement is a
associated with the other mines in the area should be fundamental part of the perpetual care system. The panel
reviewed; it was informed during the hearings that steps to recommends that Rio Algom Limited and Denison Mines
this end are going forward. Limited be required to take the lead in bringing about the
creation of a not-for-profit organization that will focus on
In order to ensure that the contain-and-manage programs at matters related to the impact of the tailings areas on the
each site will be effectively maintained in perpetuity, specific conservation of the Serpent River Basin environment. Among
and binding financial and institutional arrangements will be its functions would be the identification and management of
necessary. The financial assurances proposed by the the appropriate research programs. The board of this
proponents, while partially acceptable, are not fully corporation would include representatives of the proponents,
satisfactory. The panel recommends that there should be the City of Elliot Lake, the Serpent River First Nation, the
“hard” financial assurances made by the proponents. research community and, possibly, other communities in the
area. It is the members of the surrounding community whose
long-term interests are directly tied to the waste management
areas. Their desire to preserve the environment and safeguard
the health and safety of the community will ensure long-term
vigilance.
Introduction 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION While adjustment of the terms of reference was being
considered, the panel continued developing the “guidelines
document, II the detailed directive to the proponents (the two
In February 1993, the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB)
mining companies) on the information that should be provided
asked the Minister of the Environment to establish an
in their environmental impact statements (EISs). ehT SIE sia
environmental assessment panel to conduct a public review of
document that sets out the details of the proponent’s proposal
proposals, for which Rio Algom Limited and Denison Mines
- the alternatives that it had considered, with an explanation of
Limited had sought AECB approval, for the decommissioning
the reasons for choosing the preferred course; the anticipated
of the tailings and waste management areas of four uranium
mines in the Elliot Lake area. Two of the mines are owned by environmental impacts; and the measures proposed to
Rio Algom Limited, two by Denison Mines Limited. Production overcome or mitigate any adverse impacts. The EIS provides
base data for the environmental assessment review, and is
had ceased at all four, and AECB approval had already been
supplemented by such additional information as may be made
given for the dismantling of the underground and surface
facilities of the mines themselves, as well as for the mill available to the panel by other interested parties as well as by
facilities. The possible environmental impact of the mine the proponents during the review process.
tailings had led the AECB to conclude, however, that a public
The guidelines document could not be put into final form until
review of the proposals for their decommissioning should be
the scope of the review was determined by the Minister’s
undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Federal
Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) approval of the amended terms of reference in July 1994.
Guidelines Order. The final text of the guidelines document, which incorporates
amendments reflecting comments by the public, was issued in
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ,)AAEC( August 1994.
formerly the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review
Office, and the AECB developed initial terms of reference for The proponents submitted their completed ElSs to the panel,
the review, which were approved by the ministers of the with English and French summaries, for release in early
Environment and of Energy, Mines and Resources (now April 1995. The formal commencement of the prescribed
Natural Resources Canada) in July 1993. In August a panel public review period was announced on May 29, upon receipt
was appointed to conduct the review, consisting of of the Ojibwa translation of the summaries, with a closing
Mr. David doowkriK (Chairperson), Dr. laguoD htaerCcM and date of August 1, 1995. Following review of the ElSs and of
Mr. Tom Peters (members). Their biographies are found in the public’s comments on their adequacy, the panel
Appendix A. announced that it would require further information on the
proponents’ plans for the long-term management of the
Public meetings were held in December 1993 to provide an tailings areas before it would be prepared to schedule public
opportunity for interested organizations, groups and individuals hearings. It also listed other matters on which it wanted
to inform the panel of the range of issues that they thought additional material, but not as a prerequisite to the scheduling
should be addressed in the course of the review. The panel of hearings.
held these “scoping sessions” in Sudbury and Elliot Lake and
on the Serpent River First Nation Reserve. Following the receipt of the required material, the panel issued
a notice of public hearings to take place in Elliot Lake and
During the scoping sessions, a complication emerged. The Sudbury and on the Serpent River First Nation Reserve in
AECB referral, on which the review’s terms of reference were November 1995. Some sessions took place in Elliot Lake and
based, related to four particular mines for which AECB Sudbury as planned, but the other sessions were postponed
licences had been issued, but excluded a number of other when the death of an elder caused the members of the
uranium mines in the Elliot Lake area. These other mines Serpent River First Nation to enter a period of mourning.
included certain mines not licensed by the AECB and, thus, Rescheduled sessions took place on the reserve and in Elliot
considered ineligible for decommissioning licences, as well as ekaL in January 1996.
the only mine still operating in the area, Stanleigh Mine. There
was a consensus among the participants in the scoping A complete list of the hearing dates and participants is
sessions, including representatives fo eht laredef dna provided in Appendix C. Documents referred to above, such
provincial governments, that, despite this technical problem, as the proponents’ EISs, which are not appended to this
the situation of these other mines should, in some way, be report, may be consulted at the registries maintained at the
taken into consideration in the review. offices of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in
,lluH Quebec (Appendix H).
The panel therefore suggested to the Minister of the
Environment that its terms of reference be slightly expanded
by adding a provision that it “take into consideration . . . the
contribution of these four mines... to the cumulative
environmental impact resulting from several decades of
uranium mining in the Serpent River watershed.” The
Minister’s approval of these revised terms of reference was
received in July 1994 (Appendix B).
4 Project Setting
2.0 PROJECT SETTING elihW ereht era mrofinu slevel fo noitatipicerp tuohguorht eht,raey
ereht era egral gnirps sffo-nur eud ot gnitlem.wons
For
the purposes of this report, the term waste management
In terms of the biological environment, the Serpent River
area (WMA) is used to describe the tailings and waste
management areas. In its information, Denison Mines Limited Watershed supports a diverse ecosystem. Vegetation in the area
includes a mixed variety of hardwoods common to the deciduous
uses the term tailings management area ,)AMT( while Rio
forest region and conifers common to the boreal forest region.
Algom uses the term WMA in its information because its
tailings areas include tailings and other wastes. The four Other vegetation includes common species of blueberries and
WMAs - Quirke, Panel, Denison and kcornatS - are briefly .seirrebpsar
described in Section 2.2.
fO eht ,slammam eht tseggib emag seiceps ni eht aera si.esoom
2.1 ENVIRONMENT OF THE SERPENT RIVER White-tailed deer are found in some parts of the area. Other
mammals frequently identified in the area include beaver, red fox,
WATERSHED
timber wolf, snowshoe hare, black bear, raccoon, marten,
muskrat and shrew.
The Elliot Lake area is located between Sudbury and Sault
Ste. Marie in northern Ontario, just north of Lake Huron in the
deffuR esuorg si eht rojam emag drib ni eht .aera ehT dnilBreviR
tcirtsiD fo amoglA erugiF( .)1 ehT aera gnidnuorrus toillE ekaL si
District, a short distance to the west, has traditionally been a
sparsely populated and is deziretcarahc yb serutaef fo wol,feiler
stopover point for Canada geese on their annual migrations, and,
dexim doowtfos dna doowdrah ,tserof dna na ecnadnuba fo,sekal
in recent years, this species has established resident populations
srevir dna .spmaws
raen eht htuom fo eht tnepreS .reviR rehtO sdrib dnuof ni ehtaera
include the common merganser (a diving duck) and the herring
The mine complexes are located in the Upper Serpent River,
.llug
Pecors and Elliot Lake subbasins, which lie within the Serpent
reviR .nisaB ehT eritne tnepreS reviR nisaB sah a eganiard aerafo
In terms of aquatic ecology, the Ontario Ministry of Natural
1,376 km* and the three subbasins (Upper Serpent, Pecors and
Resources currently rates Dunlop, Elliot and Rochester lakes as
Elliot Lake) encompass 853 km*, erom naht 71 rep tnec fohcihw
excellent lakes for naturally reproducing lake trout. Depot, May,
si derevoc yb ekal.ecafrus gninnigeB tsuj ot eht htron foekriuQ
McCarthy, Esten, Hough and Quirke lakes are rated as fair lake
Mine, the system ultimately discharges into the North Channel of
trout-reproducing lakes. A 1993 survey by the Ministry found
ekaL.noruH
22 different species of fish in Evans, Dunlop, Quirke, Whiskey,
McCabe, Pecors, Elliot, Nordic and McCarthy lakes, all of which
ehT aera gnidnuob eht senim dna dnuora ekriuQ ekaL sidetanimod
are common to the area. The proponents also reported that
by valleys and ridges. The relief around the rim of the tailings
benthic populations have increased in the past 20 years,
snisab seirav ni noitavele morf tuoba 083 m ot 074 m evobaaes
yllaicepse ni ,ekriuQ ,eldniK ,yeksihW sroceP dna yhtraCcM.sekal
level. The ridges consist of extensive areas of bedrock outcrops
By comparison, there was a lack of benthic species in May and
or near-surface bedrock covered with varying depths of
Hough lakes. This was attributed to the poorer water quality
discontinuous overburden deposits. Bedrock outcrops constitute
gnitluser morf eht noitarepo fo hgielnatS ,eniM deludehcs ot esolc
approximately 45 per cent of the land surface. The valleys tend
ni ,6991 dna eht kcornatS TMA. Other aquatic organisms, such
ot mrof ekal snisab taht yllareneg niatnoc laicalg.stisoped
as phytoplankton and zooplankton, have not been studied to the
emas tnetxe sa hsif dna cihtneb.seiceps
The main branch of the Serpent River originates in the northwest
end of the watershed at Ten Mile Lake, which drains southward
2.2 SHORT SUMMARY OF EACH SITE
ot polnuD ekaL erugiF( .)2 tI neht swolf tsae hguorht ekriuQ,ekaL
entering Whiskey Lake from the northwest and leaving by the
The four WMAs that are specifically mentioned in the panel’s
southwest. The Serpent River enters Pecors Lake from the east,
mandate are all located in the “north limb” portion of the Elliot
flows southward through McCarthy, noddehS and Camp lakes,
Lake Mining Camp. Two of the WMAs, Quirke and Panel, are
then west toward Serpent Harbour and Lake Huron. There are a
the property of Rio Algom Limited, while the other two sites,
number of smaller lakes in this flow path, and there is another
Denison and Stanrock, belong to Denison Mines Limited. Each
branch of the river that flows east and south through McCabe,
site is briefly described below. Descriptions of each
May and Hough lakes into Pecors Lake. The mid-western portion
proponent’s decommissioning proposal may be found in
fo eht nisab sniard hguorht eht dnalhsraM ,reviR gnivah stiecruos
Section 5.
above Elliot Lake and kaeblluG Lake. The generally eastern flow
carries through Esten, Marshland, Grandeur, Trout and Depot
Quirke WMA
sekal otni yhtraCcM.ekaL
ekriuQ eniM si detacol tuoba 61 mk htron fo toillE ekaL erugiF(.)3
The watershed displays typical characteristics of the Canadian
Shield and its climate. There are climatic extremes of cold tI operated initially from September 1956 to January 1961.
winters and mild summers. There is a thin soil cover over Production resumed in 1968 and continued up to the end of
practically unweathered, glaciated bedrock, and there are tsuguA .0991 elihW ni ,noitarepo eht ekriuQ dnuorgrednu mine
numerous lakes, ponds and swamps, as well as forested areas.