Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
It may not be likely that Giant Mine will be declared a UNESCO heritage site, but a local group is exploring designation options for the contaminated landmark.

Signs at the entrance of Giant Mine may include a territorial, federal or international designation if interest groups decide it is the best option for communicating with future generations. - NNSL file photo

Alternatives North, a Yellowknife-based social justice coalition, commissioned a discussion paper on municipal, territorial, federal and international site designations in order to determine if any would be a viable option for Giant Mine. The paper is included as part of the coalition's submission to Giant Mine's environmental review public hearing, to be held this September through the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board.

Their goal is to help future generations remember the history of Giant Mine and what is involved in the "forever-nature" of its care.

"How do we try to make sure future generations don't forget what happened and what needs to be done to take care of the frozen arsenic underground?" said Kevin O'Reilly, a spokesperson and volunteer for Alternatives North. "A designation might help people remember."

The idea of a designation was first brought forward at the Perpetual Care Workshop in September of last year. The workshop, organized by Alternatives North and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, was held after both groups felt the developer's assessment report did not adequately cover all implications of the mine's perpetual care.

The paper found that, while there may be options available for Giant Mine, there are no site designations developed specifically for sites that are contaminated and all the designation options would require the involvement of other stakeholders to make it a reality.

"What we've found out is that there is not a clear site designation for contaminated sites," said O'Reilly. "We looked at regional, territorial, national, or even international levels and there was nothing specifically for contaminated sites."

O'Reilly said the designation study has given the group more to think about and, while they didn't find exactly what they were looking for, it has given them some options.

"The designation may not be an end in itself," he said. "It may be more of a tool for the overall perpetual care plan.

"The reports on perpetual care, long-term care, designation, are all building blocks and will inform what we say at the end when we prepare our submission."

O'Reilly said the focus of the Alternative's North submission to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board will be on minimizing the care required of the site for future generations and planning periodical reviews of current research that may provide better options for care of the site.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.