Metals in the
Sudbury Environment
Public Advisory
Committee Workshop
March
11, 2002 – 7:00 p.m.
President’s Boardroom – Cambrian College
Attendees: John Hogenbirk Nancy Keller Steve Reitzel
Norris Artuso Joe Cimino
Process Observer: Franco Mariotti
Chair:
Ivan Filion
Recorder: Julie Sabourin
Absent:
Larry McGregor Rubina
Nebenionquit Jennifer
Santarre
Gary Hrystak (Observer at the
Technical Committee Workshop)
Technical
Committee:
Glen Watson Dr. Bob Francis Dr. Bruce Conard Marc
Butler
Dr. Gord Hall Dennis Kemp Brian
McMahon Satish
Deshpande
Max Kasper Kathy McDonald Ido Vettoretti
1.0 Overview of
Discussions from Technical Committee Workshop
The PAC
were given an overview of the events that transpired earlier during the day at
the TC workshop.
2.0 Review
of Fundamental Risk Assessment Principles
i) Human Health Risk Assessment
Satish Deshpande from the Ministry of the Environment
provided the group with the same presentation as made earlier to the TC that
outlined the basic principles of a Human Health Risk Assessment and the process
used to conduct that assessment. Following
his presentation there were several questions requesting clarification to
better understand the reasons and purpose of the assessment, tolerance levels,
etc., to which members of the TC were able to respond.
The PAC were also informed that the TC had agreed to develop
a “Sudbury” food basket and use that information for comparisons in the study
as opposed to the provincial average.
The PAC also wanted the TC to ensure that the final document
be translated into a language that citizens of Sudbury would be able to
understand.
ii) Environmental Risk Assessment
Pat Bolger proceeded to provide the members of the PAC with
the core principles and purpose behind an Ecological/Environmental Risk
Assessment. Once again several
pertinent questions were raised for further clarification.
3.0 General
Discussion
Members of the PAC queried what or how are acceptable
levels/values determined. As well, they
queried whether or not the RFP would be two separate proposals or an A) and
B). It was responded that the
inclination is to go with an A) and B) and expect that one consultant could
complete both portions of the study.
4.0 Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
_______________________________ _____________________________
Chair, Ivan Filion Recorder, Julie Sabourin