Sudbury
Soils Study
Public Advisory Committee – Meeting #31
March 27, 2007 – 7:00 p.m.
Room C10, Tom Davies Square
Attendees: Ersin Abdullah John
Hogenbirk
Carol Zippel Dick
Cowan
Regrets: Nicole
Breau Franco Mariott
Darrell Alston Whitefish
Lake First Nations Representative
TC Members: Brian Cameron Glen
Watson Marc Butler
Stephen Monet
SARA Group Regrets
Chair: John Hogenbirk
Recorder: Carol Zippel
Communications Subcommittee Lynn Demers Cory McPhee
Public (5)
______________________________________________________________________
JOHN HOGENBIRK PRESIDING
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. following dinner.
2.0 INTRODUCTIONS
Members of the PAC, TC and
Communications Subcommittee introduced themselves to the public in attendance.
3.0 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4.0 OPEN FORUM (30 min.)
There were no questions
raised from the audience.
5.0 ADDITIONS TO/APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The introduction and welcome
of two new members of the PAC was added as item 5.1.
5.1
Introduction
of New PAC Members
Paula Takats and Adam Cecchetto were introduced and welcomed as new
members of the Public Advisory Committee.
07-2007 Moved by Somek - Laamanen: That Paula Takats and Adam Cecchetto be added as Members
to the PAC. CARRIED.
6.0 REPORT ON QUESTIONS/ISSUES RAISED AT LAST PAC MEETING
There
were no items that needed to be addressed.
7.0 PRESENTATION
7.1
Role and Policies of MOE in Relation to the SSS.
Brian Cameron, District Manager Sudbury Office gave a presentation
regarding the role of the MOE which is to review and approve the final draft of the
HHRA and ERA. The MOE will also review and approve remediation measures, if
needed. This will be done by reviewing the conclusions of the risk assessment
and making sure they are based on sound science and follow guidelines or policy
and best practices.
If the risk management concentration level of
a substance is found to exceed safe levels, then mitigation measures must be
appropriate for reducing risk such as soil remediation or changes in
technology/industrial process to reduce emissions. The MOE will also monitor
risk management methods and if it cannot accept the methods provided it will
work with the company to revise these methods.
Other roles of the MOE include guidance in how
to provide risk assessment. The Ministry expects community based risk
assessments be guided by risk assessment outlines in the “Procedure Use of Risk
Assessment”.
Q: “What is the process to
reject the risk assessment?”
A: It is premature to discuss
whether the report will be accepted or rejected until the final report is
completed. If, however, the report is
in danger of being rejected, then the MOE would go back to the proponents and
ask them to change the document. If this doesn’t work, then the MOE will pursue
legal options.
Q: “What does the MOE do if
there is a disconnect between policy and science?”
A: Policy comes first but that
is weighed against the available science and placed in the context of the SSS.
Q: “When the project is complete is there something that needs to
occur for its acceptance?”
A: The MOE Standard
Development Branch will review the HHRA and ERA. Advice can be sought from outside the MOE. The MOE would review
with the study’s intent in mind and not necessarily stick to the letter of the
regulations as the regulations have changed during the course of the study.
7.2 Role
and Policies of FNIHB in Relation to the SSS
WG
mentioned that the MOE invited the FNIHB to the study. WG has asked FNIHB to
clarify their role but has received no response. FNIHB have received all
documentation to date but no comment has been received.
There
was some discussion regarding the fear that FNIHB might reject the study. It was noted that the Independent Expert
Review panels have commended the SSS stakeholders for the thoroughness,
Sudbury-specific data and scientific integrity of both the HHRA and ERA.
Therefore, if the FNIHB chooses to reject the findings of the risk assessment
at this late stage, then the onus will be on the FNIHB to explain how their
opinion differs from that of independent experts and why they have not responded
earlier.
7.3 Updated Communications Plan
Cory McPhee, Public Relations CVRD-Inco, CSC representative
indicated there would be three community information sessions: Day 1 – Sudbury
(likely at Science North) and Day 2 – Falconbridge and Copper Cliff. Prior to the first public session the city,
politicians, unions, etc would be briefed. There would also be a media briefing
complete with a media package.
Q:, “How long would the PAC have to review material
before it went public?”
A: Eight weeks.
Q: “Is there a strategy to
release information to the media?”
Reiteration of an ongoing PAC suggestion to key in on environmental
reporters such as Bill Bradley or David Pearson.
A: A complete hard copy of the
final reports would be available at the McKenzie Street Public Library and a
DVD version at the other branches. The plain language summary would also be
available for people to take home.
PAC
re-iterated a suggestion to involve school children.
CSC
mentioned that all public comments would be attached to the final version of
the report.
The
PAC were concerned that the public sees delays as a major issue.
Q: “Can the need for delays be addressed in the
reader-friendly summary?”
A: CSC acknowledges that this has been an ongoing
communications issue and some thought will be given how to address this issue
during the public release.
Q: “Will there be a French version?”
A: media kit and plain language summary will be
translated into French.
There
was an additional recommendation that knowledgeable bilingual laypersons be
asked to review the French language versions, much in the same way that the PAC
will review the English-language versions.
Action: Cory McPhee to take ideas back to Communications Subcommittee. He will
ask Trevor Smith-Diggins to send out the updated Communications Subcommittee
plan to the PAC. The PAC has agreed
that this document, as well as any other reports or documents that are received
in advance of public release,
will be kept confidential.
7.4 Sun-Setting Issues
Glen
Watson indicated that once the ERA and HHRA are released to the public all
committees will be dissolved and the study will revert back to the default
organization/agency mandate. This ensures a clean end to the risk assessment
and a new beginning for risk management. CVRD Inco and Xstrata are responsible
for developing a risk management plan and strategy in consultation with the
Sudbury & District Health Unit, the Ministry of the Environment and the
City of Greater Sudbury.
8.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
8.1 Minutes of Meeting #30 –
January 17, 2007
08-2007 Moved by Cowan - Somek: That the minutes of the meeting #30 dated January
17, 2007 be approved. CARRIED
9.0 BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
None
10.0
NEW
BUSINESS
11.0 TC
MEETINGS
This document was
tabled for information.
12.0 ADDENDUM
There
were no items for the addendum.
13.0 NEXT PAC MEETING
May 15, 2007 Room C-10, Tom Davies Square
14.0 FOLLOW UP TO PUBLIC SESSION
Q:
What is being done with the fine tailing ponds? If there was a large amount of
rainfall it may result in a risk to the water table. Dr. Amaratunga’s research is well known in Sudbury but how come
it isn’t being used?
A: Cory
McPhee mentioned that CVRD Inco has a huge tailings area. It reports on its
management practices every year. Glen
Watson mentioned that CVRD Inco brings in seasonal workers each April to lay
down a straw mulch to reduce dust in the Lively area. Acid mine drainage is
collected and treated. The threat of dam failure exists but routine and third
party inspections are carried out. Dams
are designed to withstand a probable maximum flood and earthquake event.
15.0 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:05
p.m.
_________________________ ________________________
Chair, John Hogenbirk Recorder,
Carol Zippel