Risk communication and trust in decision-maker action: a case study of the Giant Mine Remediation Plan

Figures & data

Fig. 1 Location of Giant Mine (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2010; copy of an official work published by the Government of Canada—not produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the government of Canada).

Fig. 2 Dual-mode model of trust and confidence (after ref. 7).

Table 1 A history of Giant Mine and the Giant Mine Remediation Plan development¹

Time	Events
1948–1999	Gold is mined at the Giant Mine site near Yellowknife. Giant Mine is owned by several companies during this period. In 1990, Royal Oak Resources Ltd. purchases Giant Mine, and forms Royal Oak Mines Inc. In May 1992, local workers go on strike, during which a deliberately-set explosion underground kills nine miners.
1999	Royal Oak Mines, Inc. goes into receivership. The courts transfer Giant Mine to the Government of Canada through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). INAC strikes an agreement with Miramar Giant Mine Ltd. to provide care and maintenance at the site.
2005	Miramar terminates the agreement, and the Government of Canada enters into a cooperation agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) to remediate the site.
2007	A remediation plan is developed in consultation with an 11–person, independent review panel. It calls for the long-term storage and maintenance of the 237,000 tonnes of arsenic trioxide dust using the “frozen block method,” whereby designated areas around and within each of the underground chambers and stopes will be frozen and kept frozen over the long term using thermosyphons. This plan is submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (MVLWB) as part of a water licence application on October 19, 2007. The MVLWB deem the plan unlikely to be the cause of adverse environmental impact or public concern and thus not requiring an environmental assessment (EA).
2008	The City of Yellowknife (in an unprecedented partnership with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation [YKDFN] and a local environmental advocate) express concern about the potential environmental impacts of the remediation plan. In March 2008, the proposal is referred to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) for EA.
2010	The Developer's Assessment Report (DAR) documenting the EA is released in October 2010. In November 2010, INAC makes $250,000 available to facilitate the participation of groups and individuals in the EA process. Funding is awarded to the YKDFN, Alternatives North, and the North Slave Metis Alliance (NSMA) in January 2011.
2012	Public hearings on the EA are held on September 10–14, 2012.

1 The information reported here and related documents may be found on the Mackenzie Valley Review Board Giant Mine Project Public Registry (9) and the AANDC website (10).

Mackenzie Valley Review Board Public Registry. Giant Mine Remediation Project, EA0809-001 [2008], Document List. [cited November 8, 2012]. Available from: http://www.reviewboard.ca/registry/project_detail.php?project_id=69&doc_stage=0.

 Google Scholar

AANDC. History of Giant Mine. [cited November 8, 2012]. Available from: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100027388/1100100027390.

 Google Scholar