What are the MOE soil quality criteria and what do they mean?
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment’sGuideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario revised 1997, includes soil and groundwater quality criteria to help assess contaminated sites and properties. These are not legislated “action levels” - properties with levels over the criteria do not necessarily require immediate clean up. The criteria act as “trigger levels” for further study, and soil levels over the criteria do not suggest there is an immediate health concern from short-term exposure.

Where properties contain soil with levels over the MOE criteria, the need for further detailed investigation is triggered. This is exactly the case in Sudbury. Soil samples containing metal levels over the MOE’s generic criteria were reported in 2001, as well as in previous studies. As a result, additional sampling was conducted later in 2001, and a detailed human health and ecological risk assessment is now in progress. This study is referred to as the Sudbury Soils Study.

Decisions on the need to undertake action when the criteria are exceeded require consideration of factors such as:

• ¨ Whether there is or is likely to be an adverse effect to human health and/or the natural environment;
• ¨ Local environmental conditions that could modify the availability and toxicity of metal concentrations in soils;
• ¨ An understanding of the relationship between the dose and the health effect response from all of the ways exposure to metals could occur;
• ¨ Current and intended or future land use; and,
• ¨ The need for protection of groundwater.

A decision to undertake action to remediate soils would follow from consideration of these factors, plus any additional factors specific to a particular community. Before a decision is made, human health and/or ecological risk assessment(s) are often carried out to assess the level of risk to that particular community, identify the major contributing factors to risk, develop intervention levels for remediation (if warranted), and identify appropriate risk management measures.

Back to top

How were the Ministry criteria determined?
The soil quality criteria for most of the chemicals of concern in the Sudbury Soils Study (such as copper, nickel, arsenic and cobalt) are based on the toxicity of these elements to plants - not humans - and are derived for soils with a pH of 5.0 to 9.0.

These guidelines are based on sensitive plant species on which laboratory experiments were conducted. In some cases the test species are plants such as oats or wheat. These species may or not be relevant for Sudbury, which is why a site-specific risk assessment is being undertaken.

Back to top

Historic sampling since 1970 has revealed elevated metal levels in the Sudbury area. Why didn’t the Ministry act on this information until now?
Although elevated metals and arsenic concentrations in soil were known in the Sudbury area in the late sixties, there’s now a better scientific understanding of the relationship between metals and arsenic levels in soil and potential health risks related to exposure.

Back to top

Why has the soil in Sudbury been sampled?
The MOE and Laurentian University collected soil samples throughout the Sudbury area in 2001. This is part of the ongoing work to assess the environmental impact of mining and smelting operations in the area over the past 100 years. The soil sample results are to be used in the human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment of the ongoing Sudbury Soils Study. The purpose of this study is to better understand the potential for health and environmental impacts from long-term exposure to metal and arsenic levels in soils. The study is scheduled to be completed in 2007.

Back to top

What areas have been sampled?
The Ministry’s 2001 survey focused on taking samples from areas commonly used by people - especially children - such as public parks and beaches, schools, day care centres and residential areas. Efforts were focused on the City of Greater Sudbury and in the three industrial centres of Copper Cliff, Coniston and Falconbridge. The 2001 survey resulted in thousands of samples taken from hundreds of locations.

In conjunction with the Ministry survey, Golder Associates collected soil samples in and around the Town of Falconbridge, and Laurentian University collected samples near the industrial lands of Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd., as well as in more remote areas around Sudbury, to help define the extent of elevated metals and arsenic in soil.

Back to top

What chemicals were analyzed in the 2001 soil survey?
Soil samples were analyzed for 20 parameters, including: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, strontium, vanadium, and zinc.

These parameters will also be considered in analyzing any samples (air, water, vegetables, etc.) taken as part of the ongoing Sudbury Soils Study.

This analysis also identified the six chemicals of concern (CoCs) for the Sudbury Soils Study – arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and selenium.

Back to top

What are the findings of the 2001 MOE soil survey?
The sampling results confirm that emissions from over 100 years of mining, smelting and refining have resulted in elevated levels of metals and arsenic in soil over a large area. Levels of arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and selenium are highest in the areas around the three industrial centers of Copper Cliff, Coniston and Falconbridge. These current findings are consistent with historical Ministry results.

Based on current information, the Sudbury & District Medical Officer of Health and the Ministry agree that there are no expected immediate health concerns related to these findings. Studies done in other mining communities with similar or higher levels of metals and arsenic in the soil have not shown any associated measurable health effects. All the partners in the Sudbury Soils Study (the Sudbury & District Health Unit, the City of Greater Sudbury, the MOE, Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd.) agree that conducting a comprehensive ecological and human health risk assessment is a necessary and logical next step to interpret the Sudbury soil data and determine if there are any associated health risks. These risk assessment studies are expected to be completed in 2007.

Back to top

What will be done about the elevated levels of metals in Sudbury? What are the next steps?
All of the community partners in the Sudbury Soils Study (including the City of Greater Sudbury, the Ministry of the Environment, the Sudbury and District Health Unit, Health Canada’s First Nations & Inuit Health Branch, Inco Ltd., and Falconbridge Ltd.) agree that conducting comprehensive human health and ecological risk assessments is a necessary and logical next step to confirm that this is also the case for Sudbury. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not further action is necessary, and if so, where and what action that should be.

Back to top

Is the Sudbury Soils Study necessary?
In recent years, several studies have shown that there are some areas in Sudbury - generally close to the historic smelting sites of Coniston, Falconbridge and Copper Cliff - with elevated levels of arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and selenium in the soil. Although these elements occur naturally in soils, higher amounts, generally found in the top 5 cm of soil, occur as a result of historical and current mining, smelting and refining activities.

Since no previous studies have addressed the potential long-term exposure implications of Sudbury's soil metal levels and the possible risk they may present to both human health and the environment, the MOE has asked Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. to undertake the initial phase of the Sudbury Soils Study. It is one of the most comprehensive soil analyses ever done in Ontario.

Back to top

What are the Chemicals of Concern (CoCs) for the Sudbury Soils Study?
The 2001 soil sampling program analyzed for 20 parameters, including: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, strontium, vanadium, and zinc. This analysis showed that some areas in Sudbury have elevated levels of arsenic, cobalt, copper, and nickel. This led to the recommendation to conduct detailed human health and ecological risk assessments under the Sudbury Soils Study.

We made the commitment at the beginning of this Study to add other CoCs if this is indicated by our analysis. We have added lead and selenium to the list of chemicals for further study because our work has shown that these meet the criteria for CoCs:

1. Levels of the chemical in local soils exceeds Ministry of the Environment (MOE) trigger levels for further study;

2. The chemical is found throughout the study area, or throughout one of our communities of interest (Sudbury core, Copper Cliff, Coniston, Falconbridge, Whitefish Lake First Nation and Wahnapitae First Nation);

3. The chemical can be tied back to smelting activities.

All 6 chemicals – arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and selenium, will be considered in the risk assessments. As our analysis continues, additional CoCs will be included if they meet the criteria.

Back to top

What are Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments?
A risk assessment determines the potential for adverse health effects to occur from exposure to chemicals. Risk assessments are conducted for human health effects and ecological effects (e.g., effects on plants, fish and wildlife). These assessments are done to determine the potential, type and severity of risks, and if actions should be taken to reduce the potential for adverse effects.

Risk assessment methods typically use mathematical models to calculate the theoretical health risk to humans, plants, wildlife and the natural environment from exposure to a substance using an exposure pathways analysis. Actual (as opposed to theoretical) exposures can be measured for humans and some ecological species, such as plants and fish. Actual impacts to some ecological species, such as plants and fish, can also be measured.

For the Sudbury Soils Study, the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) will assess potential human health risks related to exposure to arsenic and metals from soil, water, food and air, while the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) will focus on potential risks to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife of the Greater Sudbury Area from metals and arsenic in soils.

Back to top

What will be the end result of the Sudbury Soils Study?
The detailed risk assessment will determine if there are unacceptable human health or ecological risks associated with metal levels present in the Sudbury area. Based on the available information for Sudbury, the study will provide a measure of the risk level from metals and arsenic in soils, and may determine site specific soil guidelines for the Sudbury area.

Where necessary, the study will identify the need for remediation or other mitigation actions for properties with soils above these site specific guidelines.

Back to top

Who are the partners in the study? Who will ensure it is done properly? Who is paying for all of the work?
Six organizations identified as major stakeholders in the maintenance of a healthy environment in Sudbury have been given the responsibility to oversee this extensive soil study. These groups, which comprise the Technical Committee for the Sudbury Soils Study, include the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Sudbury & District Health Unit (SDHU), the City of Greater Sudbury, Health Canada’s First Nations & Inuit Health Branch, Inco Ltd., and Falconbridge Ltd.

The Technical Committee is responsible for overseeing this important work. Both Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. have agreed to pay for all costs associated with these risk assessments. On the recommendation of the Technical Committee, Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. have hired the SARA Group to undertake the actual studies.

To ensure that the process in completing these studies is transparent and fair, the Technical Committee has brought on an independent Process Observer to observe and report back to the community on the progress of the work and the process being used. All expenses related to the Independent Process Observer are shared equally by all six partners on the Technical Committee.

There is also a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of a Chair, residents of the City of Greater Sudbury, and Wahnapitae First Nation and Whitefish Lake First Nation. The role of the PAC is to provide public input to the Technical Committee on the study process, in addition to ongoing public consultation initiatives.

The Technical Committee has also appointed two Scientific Reviewers to provide additional input and professional advice throughout the HHRA and ERA studies. In addition, at the end of the process the Sudbury Soils Study, its methods, results, conclusions, and recommendations will be reviewed by a panel of international scientists with expertise in key areas critical to the risk assessment.

Back to top

Can any member of the Technical Committee unduly influence the results of this study?
The Sudbury Soils Study process includes several checks and balances so that no member of the Technical Committee can unduly influence study design, data collection or other aspects of the study. All decisions of the Technical Committee are arrived at by consensus, and in the 18 months they’ve been together, not a single vote has been taken. More importantly, no member of the Technical Committee would ever want to unduly influence or control the study – it’s simply too important.

To ensure that the process in completing these studies is transparent and fair, the Technical Committee has brought on an independent “Process Observer”, who attends Technical Committee and Public Advisory Committee meetings to review and report back to the community on the progress of the work and the process being used.

Also, the Technical Committee is made up of environmental professionals and scientists who are recognized by their peers in their respective fields. Collectively, they have the expertise to oversee this important work. The members of the Technical Committee are not conducting the study; they have hired the SARA Group, a group of expert consultants in human health and ecological risk assessments, to undertake the study.

The Sudbury Soils Study follows decades of land reclamation work in Sudbury that introduced grass cover to once-barren rock outcrops and saw millions of trees planted and nurtured to grace the Sudbury skyline. The success of that effort is owed to the cooperation and commitment of community partners working together for a common goal. The Sudbury Soils Study is an extension of that work, and extensive studies conducted by the Ministry of the Environment over the past 25 years. Members of the Technical Committee – most of whom work and live in Greater Sudbury and are raising their families here – are equally committed to the success of this study for the collective good of all Sudburians.

Back to top

How were Technical Committee members chosen?
The Sudbury Soils Study is an extension of the very successful and highly visible Land Reclamation Program initiated in 1978 by the City of Greater Sudbury and involving several partners, including the Ministry of the Environment, Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. The additional emphasis on human health aspects associated with the current soils study initiated participation by the Sudbury & District Health Unit and Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. Collectively, members of the Technical Committee have the health and environmental expertise needed to oversee this study.

Back to top

Why are Technical Committee meetings closed?
The overriding commitment of the Technical Committee is to keep the process open and transparent to full public view. A challenge in that commitment, however, is stemming the flow of misinformation that could arise from partial disclosure of facts or comments taken out of context. Technical Committee meetings typically go eight hours a day or longer and involve complex scientific discussions. Working to consensus dictates that appropriate time is given for all views to be aired and heard. At the end of the day, however, the Technical Committee speaks with a united voice on decisions all members support. Those decisions are always made completely public – through reports of the minutes of the TC meetings to the Public Advisory Committee, the notes of the Independent Process Observer and through regular updates sent to the news media, posted on the Soils Study web site and published in newsletters.

Even though the Technical Committee’s meetings are closed, members of the community are welcome to make a presentation or voice their concerns at meetings by contacting the PAC Chairperson prior to the meeting. Each meeting is open to the public from 9:30-10:30am, and a list of dates and locations is posted on the Study website.

Back to top

Does the public have a means to provide input to the Technical Committee?
Absolutely. In fact, public input remains one of the single most important factors in the success of the Sudbury Soils Study Process. A public website - www.sudburysoilsstudy.com - contains e-mail and telephone contact information available to all residents of Sudbury. Individual members of the Technical Committee, along with the Independent Process Observer, represent longstanding members and leaders of the Sudbury community - and any one of them can be contacted directly. Also, members of the community are welcome to make a presentation or voice their concerns at Technical Committee meetings by contacting the Chairperson prior to the meeting. Each meeting is open to the public from 9:30-10:30am, and a list of dates and locations is posted on the Study website.

Monthly updates, quarterly newsletters, regular Open Houses and study-related workshops accomplish the dual role of providing the public with information and soliciting feedback. In addition, the Public Advisory Committee welcomes public attendance and public input at its meetings (dates and locations are listed on our website). In short, every effort has been made to ensure as many avenues as possible exist for public participation. This is a study for everyone in Sudbury.

Back to top

What is the Independent Process Observer’s role?
The Independent Process Observer role was created to further ensure the public transparency and integrity of the entire Sudbury Soils Study process. The Independent Process Observer does just that - observes the process. Based on those observations he reports to the public - applauding the process where it’s working, challenging the process where it’s not and suggesting changes where appropriate. His quarterly report to the public is distributed widely through the Sudbury community and is available at all public libraries and on-line at www.sudburysoilsstudy.com - the official website of the Study. The Process Observer is Franco Mariotti, a prominent local scientist and a tireless advocate of environmental stewardship in Sudbury.

Back to top

What is the role of the Public Advisory Committee?
The Public Advisory Committee serves as a public sounding board for Technical Committee decisions and communications efforts through the study. The volunteer members were selected as a representative sample of the Sudbury community, with no existing biases, affiliations or conflicts with any aspect of the study. The thread that binds the Public Advisory Committee is a collective commitment to ensuring the current soils study is conducted appropriately with proper public consultation and communication. The role of the committee is not to review the science of the study, but to comment on the process itself as seen by the average Sudburian.

Back to top

Are you looking at impacts from slag or tailings dust?
Yes. In addition to airborne releases from the smelter stacks, the Sudbury Soils Study is also evaluating dust from slag and tailings as a source of metals and particulates into the environment. This is being done through a year-long air monitoring program in and around the City of Greater Sudbury. This information will be in addition to that already being collected by the current air monitoring network run by Inco Ltd., Falconbridge Ltd., and the Ministry of the Environment.

Back to top

Does this study look at fall out of particles from air?
Yes. Airborne releases from the smelter stacks are being evaluated in this study. We are conducting a year-long air quality monitoring study, with samplers in nine locations throughout the Greater Sudbury Area, and one background sampler located at Windy Lake Provincial Park. These units collect samples over a 24-hour period every six days, following the protocol set by the National Air Pollution Surveillance Network (NAPS). Samples are then sent to the laboratory for analysis for a suite of metals. This information will be in addition to that already being collected by the current air monitoring network run by Inco Ltd., Falconbridge Ltd., and the Ministry of the Environment.

Back to top

When will results be available?
The Sudbury Soils Study is one of the most comprehensive studies conducted in Canada. Studies of this magnitude and complexity are lengthy and thorough. This process is expected to be complete in 2007. However, the study is intended to have a high degree of public involvement, and numerous workshops and open houses are planned throughout the study to solicit input and communicate results as they are available. Results will also be made available on the study website (www.sudburysoilsstudy.com) and in public libraries as they become available for public review and comment. These releases will be announced in local papers, on our website, by email, or in our newsletters, as appropriate.

Back to top

How do the concentrations in soil here compare to other mining communities (e.g., Wawa, Port Colborne)?
The soil metal and arsenic levels currently known to exist in Sudbury are generally comparable to, and in some cases, lower than those found in other Ontario mining and smelting communities with elevated metals levels from historical mining activity.

Back to top

Are soil metal levels getting better or worse?
There is no clear indication at this time that soil metal concentrations have changed within the past two or three decades. However, with improving technology and its application, Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. have taken great strides in lowering their emissions in recent years.

Back to top

Will you take a sample from my property?
The MOE sampled about 440 homes in the City of Greater Sudbury during their 2001 soil sampling program. Samples were collected from most neighbourhoods in the city. As well, thousands of soil samples have been taken in recent years from the Sudbury area, which provide a good estimate of soil metal levels. All residential property owners who were involved in the survey were forwarded a letter with their individual sampling results on June 19, 2003.

A vegetable garden survey conducted by the SARA Group as part of the Sudbury Soils Study in the summer of 2003 allowed for the sampling of approximately 85 properties in the Sudbury area, collecting both vegetable and soil samples. The final report on this study will be available in mid-2004.

There are no immediate plans to collect and analyze more soil samples in the Sudbury area. Even if your home was not sampled in 2001, it is likely that your community or neighbourhood was involved in the survey. Sampling every property in Sudbury is not necessary to understand and deal with the issue. Members of the community will be able to review the sampling results for all areas once the 2001 survey reports are completed.

The results of the 2001 MOE sampling program are to be made available to the public by the Sudbury Soils Study Technical Committee in mid-2004. The report includes all soil information collected by the MOE from urban areas, as well as information collected from remote areas by Laurentian University on behalf of Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. Individual addresses for properties sampled will not be included in the report.

Back to top

The findings of the 2001 MOE soil survey confirm that metals and arsenic levels exceed the Ministry’s own contaminated sites criteria. Why is there no plan to remove the contaminated soil?
The decision to act will depend on the outcome of the Sudbury Soils Study and specifically the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments. The Ministry’s soil criteria are not levels beyond which action must be taken. Exceeding one or more of the criteria does not immediately mean that a cleanup must be conducted, rather it means that further study of the potential human and/or ecological risks is warranted. The source of contamination must also be identified, so that appropriate measures can be taken. The Sudbury Soils Study has launched a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and an ecological risk assessment (ERA) to evaluate human health and ecological risks related to the levels of metals and arsenic found in the soil.

The findings of the HHRA and ERA will help to determine the need for further action and help focus risk management on key factors contributing to health and ecological risk. If the study finds that there is no increased health or environmental threat, cleanup may not be required.

Back to top

If it is necessary, who is going to clean up the contamination?
When elevated metal levels in soils are above Ministry criteria and the Ministry deems it necessary, the government has the authority to issue orders that require studies and site clean-up. However, if it can be demonstrated, through a detailed risk assessment, that there is no threat to human health and the natural environment, cleanup may not be required.

The question of if, where, and how the soils need to be remediated will only be answered once the human health and ecological risk assessments are complete. In areas where problems are identified, a number of potential remediation methods exist, depending on the severity of the problem.

Back to top

If remediation is needed, will Inco and Falconbridge assume responsibility?
Yes, the companies are prepared to undertake remediation where unacceptable health and ecological risks associated with metals in the soil have been identified.

Both Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. have accepted and publicly declared that they will assume responsibility for required remediation, and they have the track record to back up that commitment. In the last 20 years, more than $1 billion has been spent on environmental initiatives in Sudbury. At this point, it’s not clear whether any remediation will be needed. That’s why the study is being done. Residents of Sudbury should take comfort in the fact that both the Sudbury & District Health Unit and the Ministry of the Environment - partners in the process - see no expected immediate health concern from metal levels in Sudbury soils. But all partners agree the prudent thing to do is conduct this study to validate that belief or determine if it is incorrect. Should any remediation be required, Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. are committed to taking any necessary action.

Back to top

How can the public find out more about the Sudbury Soils Study?
More information on the study is available from the Sudbury Soils website at www.sudburysoilsstudy.com, sending an email to questions@sudburysoilsstudy.com, or by calling the SARA Group at 1-866-315-0228.

A link to Ministry of the Environment information can be found on the Ministry of the Environment homepage at www.ene.gov.on.ca. Look under the heading “Ontario’s Land.” The Ministry’s Soils Project Team in the Sudbury District Office can be reached at 705-564-3011.

The Sudbury and District Health Unit can be contacted with any health questions at www.sdhu.com, or at 705-522-9200, extension 298.

Back to top

Do the metals and arsenic being studied accumulate in garden vegetables?
Many of the metals and arsenic being studied as part of the Sudbury Soils Study do not accumulate in garden produce in a significant way. For example, edible portions of plants seldom accumulate high levels of arsenic, because arsenic at high levels is more likely to kill the plant before concentrations reach levels of concern for human health. Cobalt, copper and nickel concentrations in garden produce are generally at much lower levels than those found in soils. A home garden study was conducted in the summer of 2003, which measured concentrations of metals and arsenic in gardens throughout the Sudbury area. Results of this study will be made available to homeowners and the public in mid 2004.

Back to top

Why did it take so long to receive results from the 2001 MOE surveys?
The 2001 survey carried out in Sudbury was the largest soil sampling program undertaken in Ontario. More than 1,000 locations were sampled and 10,000 samples were analyzed. Organizing the results and ensuring data quality has been a long and time consuming process.

On June 19, 2003, the MOE mailed out individual letters and sampling results to homeowners in the City of Greater Sudbury who participated in the 2001 soil survey. Each letter included only the results for the specific property of the owner. The level of metals and arsenic measured in yard soil, garden soil and garden vegetables, where applicable, was provided in the letters, as well as information on how to make an appointment with the Ministry to discuss the results in person.

Back to top

Why was another garden survey - even more sampling - required?
The survey conducted by the MOE in 2001 was based on a limited number of gardens, and relatively few samples were obtained from each garden late in the harvest season. Those preliminary results were not sufficient to make any clear interpretation of the data, and demonstrated the need for a more in-depth garden survey as part of the Sudbury Soils Study. The SARA Group designed a much larger survey to cover gardens throughout the Sudbury area and collected many more samples. In addition soil from each garden has been collected and analyzed, something that was not done previously.

Back to top

If a high metal level is reported in someone’s garden vegetables, will they be notified?
We are currently gathering all sample results, and analyzing for individual gardens. Once compiled, these results will be compared to available guidelines for metal levels in fruits and vegetables. Any value that exceeds these guidelines will be reported to the Sudbury Soils Study Technical Committee. A decision whether the observed levels are of concern and the homeowner should be notified will be made in conjunction with the Sudbury & District Health Unit and the Ministry of the Environment.

Regardless, all homeowners will receive their individual results, and we are hoping this will occur in mid-2004.

Back to top

What is the purpose of the air sampling program?
The air sampling program was put in place to collect information and data on the concentrations of metals in the atmosphere in the Greater Sudbury Area, to allow us to estimate exposures to people, wildlife and vegetation.

We selected 10 locations, to sample for a one year period starting in October 2003. This data will feed directly into the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) of the Sudbury Soils Study. There are many exposure pathways, of which air is one. We designed the program to quantify exposures.

Back to top

Why are you sampling for particulate?
We are sampling for particulate because it is toxicologically significant for people in the Sudbury area. We will be sampling for three different particulate sizes - TSP (particulate matter less than 40 microns in diameter, retained in the human nose if present in the air), PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, retained in the throat and upper lung if present in the air) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, retained in the lower lung if present in the air).

Back to top

What methodology are you using?
The methods used have been developed in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment, and are based on methodology used province-wide for air sampling. The US Environmental Protection Agency also has a standard methodology, which was consulted in preparing the SARA Group methods. The MOE samplers currently being used by Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. follow the same protocol, and we have been able to integrate these sites into our program for the Sudbury Soils Study.

Back to top

What particulates are being sampled, and how are these counted?
We are looking at particulates of three different sizes, because they are toxicologically significant. We will be analyzing for eighteen different parameters, including: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, sulphur, thallium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. These are essentially the same as those measured in soil samples taken in 2001, and include the six identified chemicals of concern for the study - arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and selenium.

Back to top

How did you choose sampler sites?
As the data from the air monitoring program will be fed into the human health risk assessment, we selected sites (in conjunction with the MOE) that were representative of populated areas within the Greater Sudbury Area. We also selected one control site at Windy Lake Provincial Park, to be representative of air concentrations outside the influence of the smelters.

Back to top

What is the relationship of this program to the existing MOE and Inco Ltd. stack filter sampling program?
The Sudbury Soils Study is driven by soil concentrations of metals. We are looking at deposition in soils, part of which is from the stacks, but we’re not looking at stack sampling. Both Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. have provided data for historical air monitoring from the stacks. This will be included in the report as part of the inventory of all historical emissions from this area.

Back to top

What aren’t you looking at gaseous activity?
We are not measuring SO2 because there is an existing SO2 monitoring network in place, overseen by Inco Ltd., Falconbridge Ltd., and the MOE. That information is available in real time on the Falconbridge Ltd. website. As mentioned above, the parameters selected for the Sudbury Soils Study sampling are based on the particulate metals analyzed in soil samples.

Back to top

Are metal levels affecting people’s health?
Based on the current understanding of soil metal levels in Sudbury and human health risk assessments conducted in other Ontario communities, both the MOE and the Sudbury & District Medical Officer of Health believe there is no expected immediate health concern from short-term exposure to soils. The comprehensive human health risk assessment, which the study partners agree is a responsible course of action, will provide more information on the potential health risks of long-term exposure to metals in soils.

Back to top

Isn’t any level of exposure to metals and arsenic too much?
People everywhere are exposed to chemicals, like metals and arsenic, as part of their daily lives. This exposure comes predominantly from food and drinking water. Soil is an additional exposure pathway. The effects of exposure to any substance depend on the type of exposure (oral, inhalation, or skin contact), the quantity of exposure, type of substance and its concentration, and the length of time of exposure. Additional factors that must be considered are a person’s age, gender, diet, family traits, lifestyle and health status.

Many metals are essential nutrients and arsenic is a naturally occurring substance in seafood. The body naturally regulates levels of metal and arsenic, which are readily excreted unless excess exposure occurs. Removal of exposure of a person to excess levels of many metals allows the body to eliminate these substances, and levels in the body will generally return to normal.

Based on the current understanding of soil metal and arsenic levels in Sudbury, and health risk assessments and health studies conducted in other Ontario communities, both the Ministry and the Sudbury & District Medical Officer of Health believe there is no expected immediate health concern from short-term exposure to soils.

Back to top

Is it safe to garden?
Data available today and from earlier MOE studies completed in 1975, 1993 and 2001 indicate that there is no reason not to garden and eat garden produce. The garden samples collected for the 2001 MOE soil survey had findings that were similar to previous Ministry studies.

It is recommended that all garden produce be washed thoroughly, and root vegetables peeled before eating in order to prevent any soil particles from being ingested. Other simple precautions, such as hand washing and wearing gloves while gardening, can be taken to reduce unnecessary exposure to any metals in garden soils.

Back to top

Is it safe to consume fish from Ramsey Lake and the Wahnapitae River?
There are no restrictions on eating sport fish specific to the Sudbury area due to any metals or arsenic. Throughout Ontario, there are various restrictions on eating sport fish due to mercury. The Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish gives consumption advice for sport fish from Ontario waters and is published every two years by the MOE in co?operation with the Ministry of Natural Resources. Check the guide for possible fish consumption warnings related to mercury for the waters you intend to fish in.

Back to top

Is occupational exposure being considered in the Sudbury Soils Study?
Both Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd. have Occupational Health and Safety Committees that monitor and evaluate occupational exposures. Therefore, only environmental exposures to residents will be evaluated in this study. We recognize that occupational exposure is an important issue to many Sudbury residents. This is an issue that should not be ignored; however the Sudbury Soils Study is not the proper vehicle to investigate this issue.

The primary objective of the Sudbury Soils Study is to assess “environmental exposures” and we have the scientific expertise on the Technical Committee to deal with this. The companies unions already have joint Health & Safety Committees in the workplace that have the expertise to deal with occupational issues.

Back to top

Is there a concern about metal exposure due to dust in my home?
Evaluation of the potential impact of exposure to dust will be part of the human health risk assessment. Good housekeeping to reduce dust by cleaning, using mats, and regularly replacing furnace air filters is always advisable to maintain a healthy indoor environment.

Back to top

Do I need to buy bottled water?
Drinking water metal and arsenic levels are monitored regularly by both municipal and provincial regulatory authorities, and levels of these chemicals within your drinking water are low and are not believed to pose a potential health concern. The City of Greater Sudbury monitors different elements within its municipal water supplies on a quarterly basis. Water sampling from Sudbury drinking water supplies continues to meet all health-related Ontario Drinking Water Standards. The exception is the turbidity in the David Street system which is currently improving following installation of a full treatment plant in late 2003 to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

A summary of current water records for Sudbury’s public supplies is available at http://www.city.greatersudbury.on.ca/waterworks.

Back to top

Can my children play on the beach? Playgrounds? Backyard?
The Sudbury & District Health Unit has stated that no precautions are necessary when using Greater Sudbury Parks. The City of Greater Sudbury supports this statement. The concentrations of metals and arsenic measured in the Sudbury area are similar to those found at other mining and smelting sites around Ontario where previous risk assessments have found no adverse health risks. However, this comprehensive human health risk assessment is being conducted for the Sudbury area to confirm that this is also the case for Sudbury.

Exposures of children playing in and around Sudbury will be part of the human health risk assessment. There are a number of simple common sense steps people can take to further reduce exposures, such as washing after playing outdoors, hand washing before eating, supervising children to discourage them from putting soil or sand in their mouths, and keeping toys and mouthable objects clean. More information can be found on the websites of the MOE (www.ene.gov.on.ca), SDHU (www.sdhu.com), and the Sudbury Soils Study (www.sudburysoilsstudy.com).

Back to top

How can I get more information on metals and arsenic, and decrease my risk?
The MOE has developed Fact Sheets for several metals, which we have placed on our website (www.sudburysoilsstudy.com), or can send to you directly, if you do not have internet access. Please refer to these for more information on how to decrease exposure. You can also call our toll-free information line at 1-866-315-0228.

Alternatively, the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia provides excellent information on metals and ways to decrease risk (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov), and Health Canada has provided a fact sheet on arsenic in drinking water (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/iyh/environment/arsenic.html).

Back to top

How do metals and arsenic get into my body?
Chemicals can enter the body in many different ways, including ingestion of food from the store and from your garden, ingestion of drinking water, inhalation of particles in the air, and direct contact with soils. However, many of these exposures will be very small.

Back to top

How do health concerns and cancer rates in Sudbury compare to the rest of Ontario/Canada?
The Sudbury & District Health Unit has not identified a higher incidence of any diseases related to metal or arsenic exposure in soils in the Sudbury area.

Back to top

Are you going to collect blood, hair or urine samples?
At this time, it is not anticipated that such samples will be taken. However, should the human health risk assessment indicate the need for further study, this option will be evaluated at that time in consultation with the Sudbury & District Health Unit, the MOE, and other stakeholders.

Back to top

How can health be determined without taking samples?
Sophisticated mathematical models, which simulate the movement of chemicals through the environment and within the body, will be used to estimate total exposures for the residents of Sudbury. These models are based on the most recent scientific and regulatory guidance, and have been used in many similar assessments throughout Canada. Results of these estimates are generally conservative and tend to over-estimate potential exposures and risks. This overestimation is designed to be extra protective of human health and the environment.

Back to top

Are children who play outdoors under any risk at all? If so, what actions can we take to prevent additional exposure?
Children, due to their active play combined with lower body weight, tend to have greater exposure to any element or substance than adults. Infants and young children also experience mouthing activity, which increases their exposure to substances in the soil and dust on their hands, surfaces and toys. Their size and play habits also contribute to air-borne exposures as they are closer to the ground and typically come in closer contact with soil and flooring through their play on the ground.

For these reasons, the study will assess exposure to toddlers (7 months to 4 years old). However, the exposures and risks for individual children will depend on a number of factors, including where and how long they play out of doors, the types of activities they participate in, the concentrations of arsenic and metals in the different locations where they play, etc.

Back to top

Are some people at greater risk than others?
Some individuals will be at greater risk than others, for a variety of reasons. Some people will be more sensitive to exposures due to genetic factors, nutritional considerations, age and other lifestyle factors (such as smoking). Likewise, exposure will be higher in some individuals who engage in activities and behaviours (diet, occupation) that increase their exposure. From the outdoor environment, these would include all activities that increase time spent out of doors and interactions with the soil. However, increased exposure does not necessarily mean increased "disease" or health problems.

Back to top

What is arsenic?
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element widely distributed in the earth's crust. In the environment, arsenic is combined with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur to form inorganic arsenic compounds. Arsenic in animals and plants combines with carbon and hydrogen to form organic arsenic compounds.

Arsenic in soil occurs naturally, and is higher in some places than others due to geological conditions. Arsenic is found in higher than background concentrations in mine tailings or where there are airborne emissions from mining activities that deposit on the ground.

Back to top

Why has an advisory on arsenic in soils been issued to the community of Falconbridge?
Letters on how to reduce arsenic exposure from soil were sent to all residents of Falconbridge on May 12, 2003. This action was taken by the Sudbury & District Medical Officer of Health because arsenic levels in Falconbridge soil samples are higher than levels found in soil samples from elsewhere in the City of Greater Sudbury, and there is no provincial human-health based guideline for arsenic levels in soils.

Even though arsenic levels were elevated in Falconbridge, there are no expected immediate health concerns for residents. Studies done in other mining communities with similar or higher levels of arsenic in the soil have not shown any associated measurable health effects. .

Back to top

How can I reduce my exposure to metals such as nickel, lead and arsenic?
Although no special measures are needed to reduce exposure, the Sudbury & District Medical Officer of Health has recommended to residents of Falconbridge that the following steps be taken:
• Wash hands before eating;
• Wash children’s hands and faces before meals if they’ve been outside;
• Clean household dust regularly with a damp mop/cloth and clean heating ducts;
• Use removable rugs at doorways /entrances;
• Rinse garden vegetables outside and then wash them thoroughly (peel the outer skin of root vegetables);
• Brush pets outside and do it often to reduce dust inside;
• Avoid well water that shows excessive metal and arsenic levels;
• Keep children’s toys and play areas clean while discouraging mouthing activities such as eating dirt or sucking dirty objects;
• Wear gloves during excavations and digging in soil;
• Wear protective masks to avoid inhaling dust when working in dusty conditions;
• Cover soils where possible (e.g. with grass, paving stones, decking); and,
• Eliminate tobacco smoking as it contributes to arsenic exposure.

Information fact sheets on nickel, cobalt, lead, copper, and arsenic are available from the Ministry’s Sudbury District Office and can be found on the Ministry Web site at www.ene.gov.on.ca and the Sudbury Soils Study website at www.sudburysoilsstudy.com, or by calling 1-866-515-0228. These fact sheets contain easy to follow common sense ways to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants.

Back to top

Why did you use the MOE arsenic soil standard, instead of the federal health based arsenic soil standard of 12 ppm? Why are you not using the lowest standard?
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) soil arsenic guideline of 12ppm (parts per million) is less than typical background soil arsenic levels in Ontario of 17ppm (range 1 to 29ppm) and therefore is of no practical use for the Sudbury area.

The MOE advocates the use of site or community specific risk assessment methods to assess potential health risks of arsenic in soil. These studies include consideration of soil type, mineralogy and form of arsenic, bioavailability, hazard assessment, and exposure pathways analysis for sensitive populations based on site use.

The Ministry’s soil arsenic criteria are 20ppm for fine-textured soils and 25ppm for coarse-textured soils. These soil arsenic criteria are based on the protection of sensitive plant species. Exceeding these criteria does not automatically mean that a clean-up must be conducted. The criteria are used to trigger further study, such as the current Sudbury Soils Study.

Back to top

The health effects of arsenic are well documented. Why would there not be an adverse health effect from their presence in Sudbury soils?
While there is arsenic present in the soil, testing has not revealed any concentrations specifically in soils that would pose a human health concern. In most cases, human exposure to arsenic is low. In the case of environmental exposure to substances in the soil, the high-dose effects that may give rise to toxicity are unlikely, that is, toxic effects are seen at high levels of exposure, not at low levels.

Back to top

Is any exposure to arsenic too much?
There is some evidence that low levels of exposure to arsenic may be beneficial. Animals kept on a diet with unusually low concentrations of arsenic did not gain weight normally, and their offspring tended to be smaller. The estimated dose of arsenic that may be beneficial is quite small, possibly the same as normally supplied in the diet.

While health effects and risks have been attributed to long-term low level exposures to arsenic, research has also shown that the levels in Sudbury soils are not likely to create health concerns. In most cases, human exposure to arsenic is low. In the case of