Uranium mine cleanup moves ahead, but Saskatchewan is left with ballooning cost

The total price tag was estimated at under$25 million when the federal government agreed to pay for half thecleanup of a radioactive Cold-War-era uranium mine in northernSaskatchewan.

But a decade later, the expected cost for remediation of theremote Gunnar mine has swelled to about 10 times that and Ottawaisn't offering any more money, even as the province starts thissummer to remediate millions of tonnes of tailings and waste rockleft when the mine closed in 1964.

• Ottawa, Sask. to share uranium mine cleanup
• Governments spending $25M to clean up uranium mines

"With Gunnar, just the size of the waste-rock piles and thetailings area alone, it's fairly unavoidable that costs weresignificantly more," said Cory Hughes, executive director ofmineral policy at the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy.

"You really have to be there to appreciate the size of theproject."

Mine history

The Gunnar mine near Uranium City opened in 1955. The federal,Crown-operated Eldorado Mining and Refining Corp. supplied refineduranium yellowcake that was an essential ingredient for U.S. atomic weapons.

Over the course of its operation, the mine produced 4.4 milliontonnes of tailings and 2.2 million tonnes of waste rock. It alsoleft behind an open pit more than 100 metres deep.

Canada officially stopped exporting uranium for weaponsproduction in 1965.

• Is Yellowknife ready to reckon with its toxic legacy?
• Yellowknives Dene welcome recommendation that feds apologize for Giant Mine mess

The Gunnar pit was flooded with water from Lake Athabasca whenthe mine closed and the tailings and waste rock were left to theelements. Dust blew in the wind and rain and runoff drained over thetailings and into the lake.

Property owned by Sask. government

The Crown's mining and surface rights lapsed in 1990 and theproperty reverted to the Saskatchewan government. In 2006,Saskatchewan and Natural Resources Canada agreed to share theremediation costs, although the province would be responsible forbuilding demolition.

The estimated cost was $24.6 million over 17 years.

• Lake near Giant Mine will never recover from contamination, new research shows

"Really, the original estimate is a starting point to get theball rolling," explained Ian Wilson with the Saskatchewan ResearchCouncil, which has been contracted to do the cleanup.

Over the last decade, detailed environmental impact studies havebeen completed, public consultations have been held and regulatoryhurdles of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council have been cleared.

Wilson said preliminary work to build roads for crews has alreadystarted and workers are to begin using waste rock to cover thetailings this summer.

The work so far hasn't been cheap. A Natural Resources Canadareport from 2012 said the buildings, some of which containedasbestos, cost $20 million to tear down. Heavy equipment has totravel to the site in winter on an ice road.

Costly cleanup

The job is expected to take three to four years.

In 2014, the province set up a liability for the remaining work, then expected to be $208.5 million, Hughes said.

The province will spend just under $25 million for the workthat's being done this year, he said. The province is hoping Ottawawill kick in to cover more of the cleanup's cost, but the responseso far hasn't been promising.

Natural Resources Canada says Saskatchewan owns the site and isresponsible for funding the project.

"The liability for the Gunnar site is held by Saskatchewan," the department said in an emailed statement. "There are no plans toprovide additional federal funds to Saskatchewan for the remediationbeyond the $12.3 million federal commitment in the agreement."

Gunnarnot alone in cost increases

Ugo Lapointe, of the advocacy group Mining Watch Canada, saidinitial cleanup estimates frequently fall far short of true costs.

He noted that expected costs for remediating the Giant gold mine inYellowknife have also skyrocketed.

Lapointe said initial cleanup assessments are often completed byfew staff with only limited information.

It's when field work begins that costs start to grow, he said.

"It's a trend that's not unique."