» Landfill legislation

Napanee Guide – July 26, 2013 by Megan Balogh ‘Local landfill fight expands to provincial legislation’

Jeff — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:20:09 +0000

Three groups who have been fighting the Richmond Landfill near Napanee have formally applied to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario to request changes to provincial legislation governing the placement of waste disposal sites.

The Concerned Citizens’ Committee/Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE), the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ), and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) have jointly filed an Application for Review under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The application focuses on section 27 of Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act, which regulates the establishment and operation of waste disposal sites. As currently drafted, section 27 of the Act generally prohibits new or expanded waste disposal sites in the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area or within natural or man-made lakes, but does not specifically prohibit waste disposal sites at fractured bedrock locations.

“In our view, the science is clear: fractured bedrock aquifers are complex, vulnerable to contamination, difficult to monitor, and virtually impossible to clean up if contaminated,” said Mike Bossio, Chairman of the CCCTE. “For example, the Richmond Landfill was built in a fractured bedrock setting, and now the Ministry of the Environment has found that the landfill has impacted groundwater at, and beyond, the landfill boundaries in excess of allowable limits under MOE Guideline B-7, contrary to the site’s Environmental Compliance Approval under the EPA.”

“Over the decades, CELA has represented concerned citizens across the province in a number of cases involving proposed landfills at inherently unsuitable fractured bedrock locations,” said CELA lawyer Richard Lindgren. “It is time for Ontario to catch up with other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States which preclude siting landfills on fractured bedrock. Since the MOE’s own policies caution against landfills on fractured bedrock, it is long overdue to amend the EPA to reflect this appropriate and precautionary safeguard.”

The Application for Review also requests that section 27 of the EPA be amended to prohibit repetitive applications for approval of waste disposal sites at locations which have already been rejected by the MOE for hydrogeological reasons.

“In 2006, the Minister of the Environment correctly said ‘no’ to the proposed expansion of the Richmond Landfill for environmental reasons,” noted Chief R. Donald Maracle of the MBQ. “Unfortunately, the proponent has now returned seeking approval for another landfill on lands immediately beside the Richmond Landfill. In our view, the EPA should be amended to clearly state that ‘no’ means ‘no’ in these circumstances.”

Under the EBR, the Environmental Commissioner will forward a copy of the Application for Review to the MOE, which administers the EPA. The MOE will then have 60 days to decide whether the requested review will be conducted by Ministry staff.

For more information, visit www.leakyland.com.

Napanee Beaver Editorial – July 18, 2013 ‘Landfill debate fast-track’

Jeff — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:02:24 +0000

Last week, opponents to the proposed Beechwood Road Environmental Centre appealed to the Ministry of the Environment, through the Ontario Environmental Commissioner, to change the laws relating to the siting of new landfills. The alterations they’d like to see is a prohibition of new landfills on areas underlaid by fractured bedrock, and a ‘no means no’ provision. Such a provision would prevent a landfill proponent from seeking approval for a new landfill after a similar proposal at the same site had been previously denied for hydrogeological reasons. (For example, the groups’ stipulation, had it been on the books, would have meant that after the Richmond Landfill expansion was denied in 2006, Waste Management’s BREC landfill proposal would presumably have never seen the light of day.)
Although the petition for a change to Ontario’s landfill siting is a new twist in this long saga, the arguments behind it cut to the core of debate surrounding the former Richmond landfill expansion, and now the BREC landfill proposal. Boiled down, it’s this: WM says that it can ‘understand’ the complex geology underneath the site, and that its state-of-the-art liner and leachate collection systems will ensure their landfill won’t impact the surrounding environment per stringent MOE specifications; meanwhile, the opponents contend that the site is fundamentally unsuitable for a landfill because no liner system is foolproof, and failure of said system will cause contamination of groundwater that is difficult, if not impossible, to remediate. Further, having made that argument successfully once, it shouldn’t have to be made again.
Ultimately, we hope that the MOE takes the landfill foes up on their offer. Some clarity in this ongoing debate would be sorely welcome. As the groups point out in their submission to the Environmental Commissioner, “Ontario’s current landfill standards tend to focus on how landfills are to be built, rather than where they should (or should not) be located.” WM says how its landfill will be built and maintained will answer the risks associated with where it is. However, even the MOE sees limitations in the ‘how’, since they’ve specified areas where they cannot be — the Niagara Escarpment Plan and in old mines and quarries. This begs a few questions: if engineered landfills can’t be sited in vulnerable places like these, why can they be sited in hydrogeologically vulnerable places like Beechwood Road? If the technology isn’t good enough there, why is it (potentially) good enough here?
We’re not sure whether the concerned citizens et al will be successful in getting the environment ministry have a closer look at their legislation, or if the effort will have an impact on the BREC proposal which is currently being contemplated. One way or another — through this filing or through the BREC environmental assessment — we will get clarity.
And if it’s ‘no’ to the BREC, let it be a permanent ‘no’, and let’s all move on.