WITNESS STATEMENT OF IAN MUNRO

OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

(a) Introduction

1. I am a member of the Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (“CCCTE”), and currently serve on the CCCTE’s Technical Sub-Committee. As a resident of the Town of Greater Napanee, I have no personal, pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject-matter of the appeal filed by the CCCTE. My evidence will be of a factual nature.

2. On behalf of the CCCTE, I have attended many public and proponent meetings, corresponded with numerous public officials, and reviewed countless documents prepared by the proponent, the Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”), and other persons and agencies in relation to the Richmond Landfill Site over the past decade. I have also used provincial freedom-of-information (“FOI”) legislation in relation to the Richmond Landfill Site.

(b) CCCTE Involvement in the ECA Amendments

3. I have reviewed, and hereby adopt as my own evidence, the general chronology of key events outlined in the witness statement of Michael Bossio filed on behalf of the CCCTE in these proceedings. My additional evidence about my involvement in the MOE’s development of the conditions under appeal is summarized below.

4. After the MOE announced in April 2010 that the Richmond Landfill Site would be closed in few months’ time, I and other CCCTE representatives wrote to the MOE to express support for this long overdue closure (see letter from Ian Munro to Doris Dumais dated August 17, 2010). At the same time, I and other CCCTE representatives raised numerous concerns about the inadequacy of the Environmental Monitoring Plan (“EMP”), contingency plans, public notification proposals, and other closure-related documents filed with the MOE by Waste Management Corporation of Canada (“WM”) in June 2010.

5. One of the WM documents filed with the MOE in June 2010 apparently included contaminating lifespan calculations and corresponding financial assurance figures. However, these items were blacked out in the copy made available to the public for review and comment. On behalf of the CCCTE, I filed an FOI request to obtain the missing information, and WM objected to the release of the information. Months later, after considerable effort and delay, the CCCTE eventually obtained access to the missing information. It is the view of the CCCTE that access to information about crucial landfill-related matters should not have to depend upon the filing of time-consuming FOI requests or FOI appeals.

6. While the various WM documents filed in June 2010 were being considered by public and agency reviewers, I and other CCCTE representatives emailed, telephoned and met personally with various MOE officials, including the Director of the EA and Approvals Branch. At this time, the MOE expressly committed to providing the CCCTE with an opportunity to review and comment upon any draft amendments to the landfill’s certificate of approval that the MOE may propose in relation to the matters addressed by the WM documents (see letter to CELA from Doris Dumais dated September 8, 2010).

7. Unfortunately, this key commitment was not fulfilled, as the first time that the CCCTE saw the conditions now under appeal was when the MOE Director posted his final Decision Notice in January 2012 in relation to Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”) No. A371203.

8. Just before the above-noted EBR Registry notice was posted, I and other CCCTE representatives attended a January 2012 meeting with MOE officials in the Ministry’s regional office in Kingston (see minutes of a meeting on the Richmond Landfill EMP on January 3, 2012). At no time were we advised that amendments to the ECA were imminent; to the contrary, the MOE officials indicated that more groundwater investigation work was underway at the landfill site, and that the EMP would not be approved until after the submission of WM’s further analytical report.

9. However, days after this meeting, Condition 8.5 was imposed in the Amended ECA and conditionally approved the EMP (Item 45 in Amended ECA Schedule A), subject to a further requirement upon WM to file an addendum report to the EMP. The CCCTE’s procedural and substantive concerns about Condition 8.5 and the EMP are outlined in the witness statements of Michael Bossio, Wilf Ruland, Steve Thorndyke, and Dr. Poh Gek Forkert filed on behalf of the CCCTE in these proceedings.

10. After the MOE Director’s Decision Notice was EBR-posted, and when the 15 day leave-to-appeal period was running, I contacted the MOE’s Approvals Branch on behalf of the CCCTE in order to request copies of the relevant new documents referenced in Schedule A of the Amended ECA. I was advised by an MOE official that the documents could not be provided to me, and that I would have to file an FOI request in order to obtain access to these documents. I then contacted the Kingston office of the MOE, and spoke with Mr. Dave Arnott about my documentary request. The CCCTE eventually received copies of the requested documents, but only after the 15 day leave-to-appeal period had expired. It is the CCCTE’s view that it should not be necessary to pursue a statutory appeal in order to obtain timely access to landfill-related monitoring data, plans, reports or other documentation.
(c) Overview of CCCTE Concerns regarding Public Notification

11. The CCCTE is concerned that residents living beside or near the Richmond Landfill Site, the CCCTE, and members of the public at large have not been receiving full and timely notice of on-site occurrences, activities or conditions that may cause adverse effects to the environment or nearby residents. The CCCTE believes that such notification is warranted to ensure that potentially affected persons can take measures to protect themselves if necessary, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability where off-site impacts occur, or where environmental risks are created, as a result of the Richmond Landfill Site.

12. Before the Richmond Landfill Site was closed in 2011, there were significant on-site incidents or other key developments where, to my knowledge, no formal or timely public notice was provided directly by WM to all site neighbours, local communities or the public at large. Recent examples include the following:

- in November 2010, the MOE recommended that WM should provide whole house water to certain residences south of the landfill due to potential off-site groundwater impacts emanating from the Richmond Landfill Site. Even if the individual occupants of these dwellings subsequently received some sort of notice or information from WM, the CCCTE did not learn of this important development until our above-noted meeting with MOE officials in January 2012. Similarly, to my knowledge, WM did not disclose this development to other site neighbours or local communities;

- there have been various operational incidents which have been largely unreported by WM in relation to the stormwater management pond facility located upon the Richmond Landfill Site. These incidents include: sudden and unexpected release of impounded water over neighbouring properties during spring runoff; failure to close the outlet valve after an approved release, which caused the unauthorized continuous discharge of impounded water for about one month into the Beechwood Ditch; and the issuance of a Provincial Officer’s Order (and accompanying Provincial Offences Notice) regarding the outlet valve incident. To my knowledge, WM did not provide timely notice of such pond-related incidents to site neighbours, downstream riparian owners, the CCCTE, local communities or the public at large.
13. After the Richmond Landfill Site was closed in 2011, there have been significant on-site incidents or other developments where, to my knowledge, no formal or timely public notice was provided directly by WM to site neighbours, local communities or the public at large. These examples include the following:

- the witness statement of Doug Cranston filed on behalf of the CCCTE in these proceedings states that there have been post-closure odour incidents caused by on-site remedial activities at the Richmond Landfill Site for which no advance notice was provided by WM;
- WM’s Environmental Action Plan report states that there are some monitoring wells to the south and northwest of the landfill footprint that have been impacted by leachate contaminants. However, this important information, to my knowledge, has not been provided by WM to all site neighbours or local communities;

- the MOE hydrogeologist’s response to WM’s Environmental Action Plan states that the landfill has impacted groundwater at and beyond the southern property boundary in excess of Reasonable Use limits. However, this important information, to my knowledge, has not been provided by the MOE to all site neighbours or local communities;

- WM has recently proposed the establishment of a Contaminant Attenuation Zone on private lands south of the Richmond Landfill Site. However, this important information has not, to my knowledge, been provided by WM to all site neighbours or local communities.

14. I have reviewed WM’s website (http://brec-currentops.wm.com/aboutus/reports .jsp). While this site contains some of WM’s operational documents, there is very little information about the above-noted incidents, and the documents listed on the website appear to be selective, incomplete and, in some instances, staledated. Moreover, the CCCTE is concerned that placing documents on a static website, and hoping that site neighbours eventually find them, assumes that all local residents have computers, internet access, and web-searching skills. This is a problematic assumption since I know a number of site neighbours and CCCTE members who do not have or use computers. Accordingly, the CCCTE believes that the mere existence of the WM website does not negate the need for enforceable procedures in the Amended ECA which ensure that WM provides proper and timely notice to all persons interested in, or potentially affected by, activities, events or conditions at the Richmond Landfill Site.

15. I am aware that WM has occasionally mailed out (or web-posted) “Manager’s Letters” to some neighbouring residents, but these letters have tended to come out after-the-fact (i.e. after events have already occurred and/or after local media stories have been published about the Richmond Landfill Site). It is the CCCTE’s view that wherever possible, advance or upfront notification should be provided by WM to site neighbours when planned or ongoing on-site activities (i.e. repair of leachate breakouts, shut-down/maintenance of the landfill gas flare, etc.) may cause off-site adverse effects to the environment or to neighbouring residents.

16. I am aware that there is a Public Liaison Committee (“PLC”) established under Condition 10 of Amended ECA No. A371203 in relation to the Richmond Landfill Site. This Condition is not under appeal in these proceedings. Moreover, the CCCTE is not a member of the PLC, and the CCCTE has had long-standing concerns about the mandate, independence and composition of the PLC. In any event, it is the CCCTE’s view that the establishment of the PLC does not dispense with the need for an effective and comprehensive public notification plan for the Richmond Landfill Site.
17. In summary, while working on various landfill issues on behalf of the CCCTE over the past decade, I have encountered considerable delay and difficulty in obtaining timely access to data and documentation regarding the current operation, management and impacts of the Richmond Landfill Site. It is the CCCTE’s view that the local community has a fundamental right to know about the full range of environmental impacts and risks posed by the Richmond Landfill Site.

(d) Current Status of CCCTE Concerns regarding Public Notification

18. Condition 9.5 of ECA No. A371203 gave WM 12 months to submit a public notification plan that requires the provision of notice to certain persons when the proponent “will be initiating contingency plans as approved by the ECA.” As drafted, this Condition is unsatisfactory to the CCCTE and was appealed for various reasons, including:

- the timeframe for submission is too long, as a public notification plan should have been put in place already;

- the list of persons entitled to notice is too narrow, and excludes the CCCTE;

- the trigger for public notification should not be restricted to contingency plan implementation, but should include other significant operational incidents, upset conditions or other circumstances which may cause off-site adverse effects to the environment or site neighbours; and

- the Condition contains no express or implied requirements for public review/comment opportunities once WM has submitted its public notification plan to the MOE Director for approval.

19. Since the operation of Condition 9.5 has not been stayed in these proceedings, WM was obliged to submit its plan to the MOE within 12 months after issuance of the Amended ECA (i.e. by January 9, 2013). To my knowledge, a finalized plan has not been submitted by WM to MOE to date. However, WM has recently circulated a draft public notification plan, which is currently being reviewed by the CCCTE.

20. After the CCCTE filed its appeal, the parties entered into discussions regarding the appropriate form, content and scope of an appropriate public notification plan for the Richmond Landfill Site. These discussions are ongoing, and it appears that it may possible to potentially resolve some of the CCCTE’s concerns about public notification. In particular, there appears to be agreement on the general principles which should be reflected in the public notification plan, although there are a number of implementation matters which may require further review and/or revision prior to the finalization of the public notification plan.

21. I agree to attend before the Environmental Review Tribunal to present the foregoing evidence.

Tags: Beechwood Road Environmental Centre, BREC, Dump, Environmental Review Tribunal, ERT, fractured bedrock, Greater Napanee, Leaking landfill