Community Comittee on the Sudbury Soils Study / Comité communautaire de l’étude des sols de Sudbury Home       Events        Sudbury Soils Study         Links       Contact

Le Comité communautaire de l’étude des sols de Sudbury soyez venu ensemble en 2008 en raison du public soucis avec processus et résultats de l'étude de sols de Sudbury Risque pour la santé humaine Évaluation. The Community Committee on the Sudbury Soils Study came together in 2008 as a  result of public concerns with the process and findings of the Sudbury Soils Study Human Health Risk Assessment.

The Community Committee on the Sudbury Soils Study
Press release — September 1, 2009

Glen A. Fox, widely published zoologist and toxicologist,  argues that the SARA Group mathematical evaluation of environmental risk to Sudbury wildlife and vegetation falls far short of the mark.

The SARA Group recently released The Sudbury Soils Study: Ecological Risk Analysis (ERA). The ERA is supposed to document the effects of mining pollution on the Sudbury region's wildlife and vegetation.

Members of the public have been invited to submit comments on the ERA report to the SARA Group and to the members of the Sudbury Soils Study Technical Committee. The responses will be summarized and provided as an Appendix to the final report. The public comment period ends September 4, 2009.

The Community Committee on the Sudbury Soils Study (CCSSS) contacted Environmental Defense Canada for assistance in conducting a review of the findings of the SARA Group's report. Glen Fox was contracted to do the analysis. His evaluation will be part of the submission made by the CCSSS on the SARA group's Sudbury Soils Study: Ecological Risk Analysis.

In the conclusion of his evaluation of the SARA Group's ERA, Glen Fox writes,

It is agreed that terrestrial plant communities in the Greater Sudbury area have been and continue to be impacted by the COC (chemicals of concern) in the soil. ...

However, there are points where methodology and/or conclusions are questioned. Firstly, the assessment endpoint of population persistence for terrestrial wildlife implies that population persistence is adequate, even if it is persists only because of constant immigration. The  appropriate endpoint would be adequate survival and reproduction to maintain a stable population. Secondly, the conclusions associated with modeling are limited and overly simplistic ...

Measuring and analyzing the presence of metals in appropriate target tissues (liver and kidneys) of valued ecosystem components, is needed ...

The community committee is planning a public meeting on the SARA Group's ERA with Glen Fox in attendance.

As a result of Glen Fox's evaluation of the ERA, the CCSSS has made several recommendations. Here are two:
 

• The MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment) conduct further studies specifically targeting vertebrates response to the toxic mix of air-born and soil-based chemicals of concern identified by the SARA Group research.  To date no such studies have been done.

• The committee urges the City of Greater Sudbury to review Glen Fox’s comments as they address some of the shortcomings in the Ecological Risk Assessment research findings.  In particular, the CCSSS urges the city to address some of these concerns as the city develops the first comprehensive Biodiversity Plan for the region.

For further information contact:

                Joan Kuyek, CCSSS chair, (613)761-9794, (613)795-5710 [cell]
                Julien Dionne, (705)674-3816
                Homer Seguin, (705)983-1208