Sudbury Soils Study

Public Advisory Committee - Meeting #20

April 14, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.

Science North Gold Room

 

 

Attendees:               Ersin Abdullah           Nicole Breau                          Joe Cimino                           

                                    Richard Cowan         John Hogenbirk                     Gary Hrytsak

                                    Aino Laamanen         Rubina Nebenionquit            Bob Somek                          

                                    Carol Zippel

 

Regrets:                    Darrell Alston                                    

                                                                                                                       

Independent Process Observer: Franco Mariotti

           

TC Members:           Marc Butler                            Dale Henry                             Dennis Kemp                        Stephen Monet                                              Deb Pella Keen                     Mary Ellen Starodub             Ido Vettoretti                                Glen Watson

 

SARA Group:          Chris Wren                             Shawna Peddle                    

 

Chair:                        John Hogenbirk

Recorder:                 Julie Sabourin

 

Public (11)                Media

 

1.0       CALL TO ORDER

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. following dinner. 

 

2.0       INTRODUCTIONS

 

Members of the TERA Group were asked to introduce themselves. Members of the PAC and TC also introduced themselves to the public in attendance. 

 

3.0       NEW MEMBERS

 

New members of the PAC - Dick Cowan and Nicole Brault were also introduced.

 

4.0       DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

None.

 

5.0       OPEN FORUM

 

Homer Seguin

 

Homer welcomed TERA to Sudbury and indicated he had great faith in the SSS process.  He remarked that the TC meetings are closed in camera meetings which he feels are inappropriate when dealing with the health of the public.  He stated that now the PAC is conducting 50% of their meetings in camera as well and he asked the PAC to re-consider this practice.

 

The PAC responded by informing Mr. Seguin that housekeeping issues are the only items discussed during these sessions to further facilitate time available at the public meetings where issues of significance can be raised in a public forum.  He was also informed that the Independent Process Observer is invited to attend all these meetings.

 

6.0       PRESENTATIONS

 

            6.1       The Role of the IERP and the Selection Process

 

Stephen Monet reviewed the selection process for the IERP and their responsibilities in the review of the final SSS Report. He went on to note that this is an iterative process. He requested the TERA Group elaborate on the process they will be going through as well as the ground rules and lines of communication.

 

            6.2       TERA Group Presentation

 

This group introduced themselves and indicated they were a charitable, non-profit organization.  They went on to provide their history and background.  Further to Stephen’s request, they outlined the administrative ground rules which state that they should not communicate with Inco or Falconbridge directly on any technical or scientific issues and that all direct communications would be restricted to contract/financial issues. All other communications would occur through Brian McMahon and all e-mails copied to WG members.

 

Further to this, they explained what a peer review is. It was stated that for risk assessment products, it involves an in-depth assessment of the assumptions, calculations, alternate interpretations, methodology, and conclusions.  Peer review panels may seek to reach consensus or common agreement regarding the adequacy of the product reviewed. They also provided an explanation of the Charge to Reviewers and what that entailed.

 

They also thanked the Working Group for taking them into the field yesterday and the tour of the mining companies and the some of the smaller communities involved to give them a better understanding of the study.

 

Following are some of the questions that were raised:

 

Q:        How many panel members?

A:        Probably 10 to 12.  This will be dictated by what expertise is exactly required.  They will likely be two panels under one directorship to review both the ERA and HHRA.

 

Q:        The report – how and when will it come to the public?

A:        The authors of the report will revise the document according to the recommendations from the IERP. The PAC requested that they be part of the distribution of the first draft to the Panel.

 

            Further to the request regarding the distribution of the report, it was noted the Panel will suggest how and when it will be released in the community.  They will also identify addition research or data gathering needs.

 

Q:        Will there be an Executive Summary?

A:        It is expected there will be a plain language document that will accompany the data.

 

Q:        How long after the review process will it become available to the public?

A:        Probably several months.  Once the report is reviewed, it may then need to be revised and conceivably, additional studying may need to occur.

 

8.0       ADDENDUM

 

There were no other addendum items at this time.

 

9.0       NEXT MEETING

 

May 17, 2005 – site to be determined.

           

10.0    ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. 

 

 

 

 

            _______________________________              _____________________________

                        Chair, John Hogenbirk                                             Recorder, Julie Sabourin