BY BILL BRADLEY
Homer Seguin's biting criticisms of a report of the Sudbury Soil Study, released in May, are getting some support.
The retired occupational health and safety advocate for Steelworkers union local 6500 received support for some of his comments in his ten-point letter.
His submission was addressed to the technical committee of the Sudbury Soil Study, the decision making body of the extensive study, the SARA group of experts conducting the work and the Public Advisory Committee (PAC).
This is the group ensuring public input to the process.
Tuesday evening at the first PAC meeting held since last September, Seguin made a presentation to PAC members, following his comments published in Northern Life July 1, 2008.
Some of his assertions struck a cord with PAC members. The committee is drafting its own reaction to the May release of the Human Health Risk Assessment that assessed the risk to residents health from past mining practices.
PAC members felt though the public consultation sessions held in May to educate the public were excellent there were glitches.
Aino Laamanen, PAC member, said she had heard a number of people question whether the right questions were answered by the study.
“I sensed a number of people were hesitant in accepting the findings that there is no risk to the public from contaminants. I agree with Homer Seguin that there be
tissue sampling especially in those areas closer to the mining operations,” said Laamanen.
On the other other hand, Laamanen said people she talked to did not think mining companies were in a conflict of interest in having a say over the study as was insisted upon by Seguin.
Other members agreed that concern about lead levels was a factor in public unease.
“I do not think there was a clear explanation to the public of why the study chose 400 parts per million for lead exposure locally vs the 200 parts per million trigger value that is standard for the province,” said Franco Mariotti, independent process observer for the Sudbury Soil Study.
Marc Butler, representative from Xstrata, and a working group member, said he knew for a long time lead would come back to haunt the study.
“We knew lead would come back and dominate when reports by the study group were released,” said Butler.
Butler noted that lead can come from a number of sources, not just from smelting operations, including lead paint used on older homes.
Mariotti also gave credence to Seguin's insistence that there needs to be more studies. Seguin contended there needs to be further studies that focus on the exposure of the public to a full range of environmental and workplace exposures to metals.
“This (Sudbury Soil Study) was a foundation. There could be more studies,” said Mariotti.
His view was backed by Glenn Ferguson, representing the SARA Group.
“This was a signpost study which created a clearinghouse of data for this city. That foundation allows for further studies,” said Ferguson.
Seguin also said he and concerned citizens had already recruited an internationally renowned expert in the field of toxicology to do further work.
“I am not telling who that person is tonight but I am so concerned about this that I am willing to put some of my own money into this and willing to find other financial resources. We need a truly independent study to answer the unanswered questions,” said Seguin.
He insisted a new or extended study should not include mining companies in a decision making capacity.
“They can be part of the advisory process and provide information. But it is a conflict of interest for them to have decision making power. That violates all principles of fair play,” he said.
PAC chair John Hogenbirk confirmed Seguin's comments were being taken seriously but disagreed with some of his comments.
“I disagree in the criticism about how the technical committee of the soil study makes decisions, by consensus. When groups operate by majority rules or by voting, that leaves some people out. We wanted to be able to move forward together as a group. Operating by consensus is the modern way,” said Hogenbirk.
