Sudbury Soils Study
Public Advisory Committee - Meeting #10 - Revised
September 16, 2003 – 6:30 p.m.
Koski Centre - Cambrian College
Attendees: Norris
Artuso Joe Cimino Ivan Filion
John Hogenbirk Gary
Hrytsak Aino Laamanen
Rubina Nebenionquit Paul
St. Jean
Process Observer: Franco
Mariotti
Absent: Ronda
Gougeon Dino Maserio
TC Members: Marc
Butler Bruce Conard Gord Hall
Max Kasper Dennis Kemp Brian McMahon
Cory McPhee Stephen
Monet Mary Ellen Starodub
Ido Vettoretti Glen
Watson Ed Wierzbicki
SARA Group: Jan Linquist Chris Wren
Chair: Ivan
Filion
Recorder: Julie Sabourin
Public
Media
1.0 CALL
TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at
6:30 p.m. following dinner. The Chair
expressed his appreciation for the number of public that were in
attendance. He encouraged them to talk
to members of both the PAC and the TC after the agenda was completed.
2.0 DECLARATION
OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
3.0 ADDITIONS
TO/APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4.1 Minutes of Meeting #9 – May 20, 2003
08-2003 Moved by Hogenbirk – St. Jean: That
the minutes of meeting #9 dated May 20, 2003 be approved. CARRIED
5.1 Recruitment of PAC Members
At the last TC meeting and following
discussion, the TC recommended the PAC become more autonomous and consider
recruiting their own Committee members.
The PAC was then informed that Ronda Gougeon submitted her resignation
from this Committee due to time constraints. This leaves two vacant positions
on the PAC. During discussions the concern was expressed regarding any legal
repercussions/liabilities to the members of the PAC as volunteers. The PAC also requested to see the criteria
used in the selection process and any applications that are currently on
file. It was also suggested that the TC
initiate the call for applications via the media, forward, or have the
applications directed, to the PAC who in turn will short list and provide the
names for TC consideration. It was
agreed that this item would be deferred to the annual review of the Terms of Reference
wherein a procedure would be developed and incorporated. This would also provide an opportunity for
legal opinion to be obtained. In the
interim, the PAC supported working with the current process.
Action: Criteria to be tabled at November meeting for review.
5.2 PAC
Annual Report
The Chair noted that this is identified as being the responsibility
of the PAC in their Terms of Reference.
It was suggested, to which all agreed, that the Chair and Vice-Chair prepare
a document for review at the next meeting - approximately two pages, listing
accomplishments, recommendations and how they transpired. It was requested that this document be
distributed electronically to the PAC prior to the next meeting for
review. It was also suggested that the
final report be distributed to the public via the website. The Chair asked the PAC to forward to him
any suggestions for headings, things that needed to be said, etc., for
inclusion in the draft.
Action: PAC
to feedback information to the Chair.
Chair to distribute
draft electronically prior to next meeting.
Final draft
to be tabled at November meeting for approvals.
5.3 Progress Report from the SARA Group
Chris Wren
of SARA made a presentation on the status of the Study to date and requested
feedback in several areas. One request
was if the PAC agreed there was enough profile with the Vegetable Garden Survey.
The PAC supported the TC/SARA decision in this regard as it was reported there
was a cross-section of the Study area incorporated into the documentation. Another request was for comments regarding
the Update newsletter.
Action: Comments to Chris
(via the Chair or Julie) by September 19th.
Chris
indicated he expected this would be distributed in the Northern Life by
mid-October. Further to this
distribution, it was stated that not all members of the Study area would
receive the Northern Life and what contingency plan was in place for those
citizens. Chris indicated that stacks
of the newsletter are distributed to special interest groups and it would be
posted on the website. It was a
requested that the CSC research to ensure all the study area is covered in the
distribution. It was requested that
distribution be done prior to the next Open House and consideration be given to
a mail out to all residences.
Action: CSC to research distribution points.
Communication Plan:
Chris reported that the Communication Plan would be presented at the next PAC
meeting. The concern was expressed by the PAC for the need to go outside of
Sudbury to retain professionals to fulfill this job function. Chris explained
the process and the reasoning behind the decisions and indicated that this
recommendation was supported by the TC.
Action: Julie to place on
next agenda.
Open House: This is tentatively scheduled for November
18th. It was noted that this was in conflict with the regularly
scheduled PAC meeting. Alternate dates
will be discussed further in the agenda.
The PAC requested more process elements be presented at the next Open
House - what the TC/PAC is, who makes up these Committees; what is expected to
be accomplished; what the obligations at the end of the Study are; more of an
information session with Power Point presentations. The PAC asked for an opportunity to review the material prior to
the Open House to be able to provide feedback.
It was thought that a special meeting/ presentation may have to be held
to accomplish this.
Action: SARA to provide opportunity for PAC
feedback.
Falconbridge Liaison Committee
(FLC): The PAC was informed
about the concerns raised in this community and informed of recent developments. Chris explained that Falconbridge Ltd. and
the FLC were encouraged to bring the results of any testing under the umbrella
of the Sudbury Soils Study to form part of the HHRA. This raised the question
as to whether the FLC now becomes a Sub-committee of the TC similar to the PAC.
Action: For TC discussion.
Scientific/Peer
Reviews: It was
noted that access to technical information regarding the Study is not limited
to the Scientific Reviewers. Each
agency/company involved with the Study is available to the PAC, upon request,
to inform on their role or clarify information within their scope of expertise. The PAC was also informed of the individuals
selected as the scientific reviewers that will follow the study and that are in
addition to the peer reviewers that will critique the completed study. The TC also informed the PAC that the
reviewers selected for the final report will be selected from an international
body who, in their own right, must maintain rigorous standards as part of their
ethical responsibility to their own scientific community. The PAC indicated that they would be
interested in the selection process of these Reviewers.
Action: WG to keep PAC informed.
Further
to Chris’ report, he asked for feedback from the PAC as to how they felt it
would be best to present the data to the public. He provided various options for consideration. Several
suggestions were offered with no conclusion achieved at this point in time. The
PAC requested that the information contained in the report not be diluted nor
trivialized;\ and that statements be direct and conclusive.
6.1 Process
Observer Visit to Port Colborne
6.2 Eric Gillespie
Mr. Gillespie, a Toronto lawyer
working with residents of Port Colborne for the past couple of years, asked for
an opportunity to speak to the PAC. He
had several suggestions to offer the PAC such as retaining their own technical
advisors and expand the membership of the PAC.
At this point Mr. Artuso noted that
the minutes do not always accurately reflect what transpires at the PAC
meetings and a request was made for Mr. Gillespie to consolidate his comments
and submit them to be appended to the minutes.
The Recorder informed the PAC that Committee members are given every
opportunity to modify the minutes to their satisfaction, prior to final approval
at the meeting.
The question was also raised as to
whether or not there is a budget assigned to the PAC. The Chair indicated that this could be reviewed with the Terms of
Reference.
6.3 Letter presented by H. Seguin
Homer Seguin read a copy of the
letter, submitted to the PAC and which was addressed to the Premier and signed
by all the labour leaders employed by Falconbridge and Inco Limited.
7.0 TC MEETINGS
7.1 Minutes
of TC Meeting #22 June 3, 2003
Minutes
of TC Meeting #23 July 15, 2003
Minutes
of TC Meeting #24 August 12, 2003
Minutes
of TC Meeting #25 September 3, 2003 (Draft)
These minutes were tabled for
information. Further to the minutes of
meeting #22, clarification was requested regarding the discrepancy in the lab
results regarding arsenic.
Action: TC to
provide more information at next meeting.
Regarding minutes #24 and the
ownership of the Study materials it was reinforced that this was a promise made
to the community.
8.0 ADDENDUM
8.1 Future Agendas
It was requested to have
sufficient copies of the agenda available for the public at future
meetings. It was also requested that
Committee members be introduced to the public as well.
Action: Julie to provide extra copies of the agenda.
Chair to facilitate introductions of
committee members.
9.0 NEXT MEETING
Due
to the conflict with the scheduling of the Open House, it was agreed to
schedule the next PAC meeting on November 13th. It was also agreed to delay the Open House
to November 25th if the Science North Cavern is available.
November 13, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. – Koski Centre, Cambrian
College
10.0 ADJOURNMENT
09-2003 Moved by Hrytsak - Cimino: That this
meeting be adjourned. Time: 9:50
p.m. CARRIED
_______________________________ _____________________________
Chair, Ivan Filion Recorder,
Julie Sabourin
Summary of Presentation to Sudbury PAC by E. Gillespie on Sept. 16, 2003
At the request of the PAC, I am providing a written summary of the presentation made at the PAC meeting on Sept. 16, 2003. This summary includes material presented that evening as well as some additional information regarding the same subject matter. If the PAC has any further questions or wishes to obtain any additional information I would be pleased to respond. I can be reached at (416) 593-4385 ext. 225 or at ekg@mmplaw.ca
Background
I and other legal counsel have been working for the past two and a half years on behalf of residents in Port Colborne, Ontario to address issues of historic contamination in that community from a large scale nickel refinery operated by Inco since 1918. We represent approximately 8,000 residents in a proposed class action, and approximately 1,500 residents who we have been retained by outside of the class action. In addition we are working with residents involved in a separate Port Colborne initiative called a Community Based Risk Assessment (CBRA).
Port
Colborne’s CBRA
The CBRA is an approximately $10 million risk assessment process that started in 2000 and will likely be completed in 2004. It will produce three major studies, (i) a human health risk assessment, (ii) a natural environment risk assessment and (iii) an agricultural crop study. In addition, at the request of the community a large scale human health study and a proposed property valuation study are also to be undertaken in large part through the CBRA.
The CBRA is fully funded by Inco. However, all work is directed by a Public Liaison Committee (PLC). As discussed in the presentation made to the PAC by Franco Mariotti, the PLC is made up of 8 residents, all of whom submitted their names and were then appointed to the PLC by the City of Port Colborne.
There is also a Technical Sub-Committee (TSC) of the PLC. The TSC is made up of members of the PLC, Inco and its various consultants, the Ministry of Environment (MOE), the City of Port Colborne and the Regional Public Health Department.
All scientific matters are referred initially to the TSC, which then makes recommendations and forwards them to the PLC. The PLC can either endorse the recommendations or refer matters back to the TSC for further consideration and/or revision. Because the TSC operates on a consensus decision basis, Inco must approve of all decisions before they go to the PLC. However, the PLC must also endorse each decision on behalf of the public. The final work product will then be submitted by the PLC to the MOE for review.
The Port Colborne CBRA and the Sudbury Soils Study are clearly different, and it would not be appropriate to try to import everything from one into the other. However, there are aspects of each that are worth considering.
The
PLC’s Scientific Advisors
The Port Colborne TSC also includes representatives from Stantec Limited. Stantec is a multi-national consulting firm with on-staff specialists capable of providing expert advice in most areas of the CBRA. Stantec act as the technical advisors to the PLC. They were selected by the PLC from amongst competing firms. They are paid by Inco, but all monies flow through the City of Port Colborne. As a result, the City requests that Inco deposit a certain sum in advance of any work being done. Once these funds are depleted more are sought. In this way, Stantec knows that it will be paid and operates independent of Inco’s control, but is not reliant on taxpayers’ dollars to finance its work.
Over the past three and one half years Stantec (once known as Beak International) has devoted several thousand hours to assisting with the development of protocols and studies, supervising field work and providing detailed reviews and comments on work that has been completed. They do not act for industry. They do not act for the government agencies involved in the process, all of whom have their own experts. They act for the public and provide independent advice that ensures that public input into the process is fully informed and meaningful.
This provides a three way balance between industry, government and the public. Since each has a very large interest in the outcome of the process, each has a role to play. This approach ensures that each set of interests is fully represented and fully informed.
Sudbury’s PAC
Industry and government have a major role in the Sudbury Soils Study process. The PAC is the primary mechanism through which the public has a role. However, there are concerns that the PAC is not being provided with the full range of tools that it requires to be a fully informed and meaningful participant in the SSS process. As a result, the PAC is now being asked to consider adding a technical consultant of its own choice.
It would appear that in principle the Technical Committee (TC) of the SSS has already agreed that this type of support is appropriate, given that at the meeting on Sept. 16th it was announced that Dr’s Swanson and Breecher have been appointed as Scientific Advisors to the TC and PAC. In addition, it was also suggested that the PAC can refer technical questions to the MOE and Public Health Unit (PHU). However, there are three concerns with this approach.
First, the amount of work involved in participating as the technical advisors of the PAC is likely well beyond the capabilities of two individuals. As noted above, in the case of Port Colborne thousands of hours have already been spent by the PLC’s technical advisors. Given that Sudbury is far larger and has almost ten times the population, the SSS is an even bigger undertaking.
Second, a concern was expressed about the PAC’s ability to select truly independent consultants. This concern was highlighted by the acknowledgement by Dr. Bruce Conard of Inco during the meeting on September 16th that Dr. Breecher recently appeared at an Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing in Port Colborne as an expert witness retained and paid by Inco.
Third, if matters are referred to the same government agencies already involved in the SSS, then it is unlikely that they will see and correct errors. Given that they will have already reviewed the same subject matter, any problems or conclusions that may need to be revisited are unlikely to be identified by the same agencies that have already gone through the same exercise at the TC level. In addition, government agencies (especially small entities such as the PHU) do not have sufficient resources to fulfill this role. More importantly, this also draws on the public purse, which most members of the public do not believe should have to bear this burden.
As a result, for the following reasons, it would appear to be beneficial for the PAC to be provided with its own self-selected, independent technical consultant.
(a) Time: It is apparent that significant demands are already being placed on a small group of individuals, all of whom are volunteers. Selection of a technical consultant would dramatically reduce the amount of time that PAC members will have to spend reviewing and commenting on the large number of scientific investigations that will take place over the next three years.
(b)
Expertise: If public input through the PAC is to be truly meaningful it must
also be informed. In many people’s
minds it is not reasonable to expect a group of community members, particularly
volunteers, to already have or to develop the extremely wide range of expertise
to be able to properly review and comment on all aspects of the SSS.
(c)
Liability: There is also the issue of potential liability to PAC
members. However, if a professional consulting
firm is providing advice the burden of liability would fall on them.
(d)
Credibility: Any time a process involves industry and government there will be
people who have doubts about the process.
That is one of the main reasons why the PAC exists, to ensure that the
public also has a role in the SSS that is independent of industry and
independent of government agencies.
Enhancing the role of the PAC clearly enhances the role of the public
and the credibility of the SSS.
(e) Compromise: Recently concerns have been raised from various parts of the community regarding the role of Inco and Falconbridge in the SSS. We have not advocated for the removal of the companies from the TC. Instead, we believe a better solution is to level the playing field between industry, government and the public, in part by allowing the public to participate in a more informed and educated way through its own scientific consultants. We believe that by the PAC and TC agreeing to this type of compromise, this will be a clear sign that the SSS is receptive and responsive to the community.
(f) Cost: If the SARA Group’s work is being done properly costs will be minimal. If they rise because issues are discovered obviously additional expenditures would be justified.
(g) Finality: By including a stronger role for the public in the scientific process this significantly reduces the possibility that outside challenges to the SSS, which could delay the final outcome of the SSS for many years, will be mounted.
For all of these reasons, we sincerely hope that the PAC will endorse a recommendation that technical consultants be provided for the PAC.