NNSL Photo/Graphic
All new
NNSL classifieds
FREE until April 1st
Create your own



SSISearch NNSL
 www.SSIMIcro.com

 Features

 News Desk
 News Briefs
 News Summaries
 Columnists
 Sports
 Editorial
 Arctic arts
 Readers comment
 Find a job
 Tenders
 Classifieds
 Subscriptions
 Market reports
 Northern mining
 Oil & Gas
 Handy Links
 Construction (PDF)
 Opportunities North
 Best of Bush
 Tourism guides
 Obituaries
 Feature Issues
 Advertising
 Contacts
 Archives
 Today's weather
 Leave a message


NNSL Photo/Graphic


SSIMicro

NNSL Logo.

Home page text size buttonsbigger textsmall text Text size Email this articleE-mail this page

Review board takes criticism on arsenic treatment

Andrew Livingstone
Northern News Services
Published Wednesday, January 28, 2009

SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE - In the face of criticism on its decision to use the "freezing-block method" to deal with arsenic contamination at Giant Mine, the regulatory body reviewing cleanup plans for the site says other options could still be considered in the future.

Tawanis Testart, environmental assessment officer in charge of the Giant Mine file for the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, said the freezing-block method for dealing with the 237,000 tonnes of arsenic at the decommissioned Giant Mine was thoroughly researched against the options of treating it on-site or removing it completely. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada presented the method to the review board in its reclamation plans.

"From what (the review board) heard through the scoping process, there wasn't enough evidence presented that the developer themselves hadn't done a thorough review of all those alternatives and selected the best fit according to their criteria they set forward," Testart said. "It's not to say that over time, through additional information brought forward the review board might not find a compelling reason to do the review further down the road."

Kevin O'Reilly, executive director of the Independent Mine Monitoring Agency, said the review board set a bad precedent by removing the alternative options from the table. He added alternative options need to be considered.

Mayor Gord Van Tighem said the city is concerned about the parcel of land within city limits, and the city must know what options are available to the city for possible development.

Testart said if evidence becomes available to the review board during the current review process they would look into it, but once the assessment is complete, the review board's part in the process is over. She didn't have any dates for completion.

"If it's accepted by the minister, there is no mechanism to go back and make changes," Testart said. "We like to see projects evolve as the assessment progresses so that at the end of the day you end up with a result that's good for everyone."

Testart said the review board will do everything it needs to do to ensure the cultural and environmental well-being of the valley is put first.