Ian Munro

Napanee

Mr. Gord Miller
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
1075 Bay Street, Suite 605
Toronto, ON
M5S 2B1

Dear Commissioner Miller,

I write in support of the application for review of section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act submitted by Concerned Citizens and others.

As one of the many citizens who have tracked developments related to the Richmond landfill in Greater Napanee for years I am only too aware of two key relevant facts. First, the existing landfill is leaking into the vulnerable aquifer from which neighbours draw potable water for domestic and agricultural use. Second, attempts by the site’s owner to expand the facility to accept mega-tonnes of additional garbage at or beside the same site continue after fifteen years!

Given the obvious trend in Ontario for fewer and fewer landfills of larger and larger size and the fact that these facilities have the capacity to contaminate the environment for centuries, it seems obvious that they should ONLY be sited in the safest possible locations. You have described the site of the existing Richmond landfill as among the worst in the province to locate such a facility. Minister Broten refused its expansion in November 2006 for reasons related to its unsuitable hydrogeology. Why, then, are we continuing to consider its expansion in 2013?

Our experience has made it clear that, without amended legislation, unsuitable locations such as the Richmond landfill site will continue to be proposed for mega-landfills and massive efforts will be required to ensure they are NOT approved. This is not a responsible approach to waste management.

I therefore join those who urge the Ontario government to amend the Environmental Protection Act, as requested in the EBR Application for Review.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Munro

July 22, 2013

Our region can do its part in solving the waste problem by considering enclosed composting and material recycling facilities; but our home is not suitable for massive landfills such as the new BREC landfill proposed by Waste Management to be located beside the now closed Richmond Landfill. Because of the leaky land from fractured bedrock, the Richmond Landfill site is “arguably one of the worst areas in Ontario to build a landfill” (Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2009).

The over half-a-century old Richmond Landfill was allowed to be built and expanded in a time of little government regulation and scientific oversight. Unfortunately, it still appears to be easier to build a new landfill on an existing site that was never properly vetted for its hydrogeological suitability, than to locate one properly in the first place.

Many hydrogeological experts agree that it is virtually impossible to confidently monitor and clean up contaminated groundwater in fractured bedrock aquifers. New or expanded landfills should be prohibited by law in these kinds of sensitive areas, especially since many people and livestock rely on water drawn from fractured bedrock aquifers. Recently, concerned citizens submitted an Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) application to tighten up legislation that deals with the locating of landfills.

In 2004 I attended a talk by the renowned hydrogeological scientist, Dr. Allan Freeze, entitled “Some Awkward Truths about Waste Disposal” hosted by Queen’s University. Freeze pointed out that double liners delay early failure but eventually leak, transferring the risk to future generations. He stressed that good siting is critical in order to minimize the risk of eventual leachate leakage and to maximize confidence in detecting and properly mitigating leakage.

Freeze put it succinctly in a presentation he gave in 2001 to the University of Michigan when he wrote,

“Proper siting represents the best possible route to environmental protection, but current socially-driven siting promotes poor sites at the expense of good ones.”He continued, “Wise environmental policy would promote prevention rather than remediation, regional aquifer protection rather than site-scale engineering design, and consideration of long-term risks rather than short-term economics.”

The issue of proper landfill siting takes on an even greater importance when considering the new groundwater source protection plans of the provincial government. A report by the Ministry of Environment’s Committee on Watershed-based Source Protection Planning (2003) stated,

“Protecting Ontario’s drinking water at its source is the first line of defence in what experts refer to as the ‘multi-barrier approach’ to ensuring the safety of drinking water. Each barrier in the system works together to prevent or reduce the risk of contaminants reaching your tap.”

Until our society finds alternatives to landfills, we need to be smart about where we put them. The Lafleche Landfill, north of Cornwall, is one good example of a regional landfill on suitable geology. It is underlaid by 50 feet of impermeable clay that provides a natural barrier to leachate movement. Concerned citizens hope that their EBR application will be accepted by the government as a means of bringing landfill regulations in line with conventional scientific wisdom on the importance of proper landfill siting.

Stephen Medd
Retired Geologist

Opponents of the proposed Beechwood Road Environmental Centre west of Napanee are looking for a legislative solution to their ongoing fight with Waste Management.
Last week, the Concerned Citizens of Tyendinaga and Environs along with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte announced that they would be asking the Ontario Environmental Commissioner to call on the Ministry of Environment to review and rewrite the laws relating to the siting of new landfills.
With the support of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the groups are seeking to prohibit new landfills from being situated on fractured bedrock; further, they would like the MOE to prevent applicants from resubmitting environmental assessments for projects after similar projects have been denied — a change the landfill opponents have dubbed a ‘no means no’ provision.
Specifically, the groups have jointly filed an application for review under the Environmental Bill of Rights with the Environmental Commissioner, focussing on Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act, which regulates the siting and operation of landfills.
WM is currently preparing an environmental assessment for the BREC, one component of which is a new landfill site which would accept approximately 400,000 tonnes of waste per year for the next 20 years.
In 2006, the MOE denied a WM application to expand the Richmond Landfill site, following considerable resistance from local community groups. Since then the Richmond Landfill has ceased operating, although it is now at the centre of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing relating to the site’s closure plan, and specifically the discovery and remediation of off-site impacts near the 60-year-old landfill on Beechwood Road.
“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, chair of the CCCTE in a press release issued last Thursday. “For example, the Richmond Landfill was built in a fractured bedrock setting, and now the MOE has found that the landfill has impacted groundwater at and beyond the landfill boundaries.”
The opposition groups also note that prohibitions of new landfills have been established elsewhere in Ontario, specifically in the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area or within natural or man-made lakes (including former mines and quarries); they also say that other provinces and U.S. states have banned new landfill sites from being created over fractured bedrock. “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 in the U.S, 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.”
In a telephone interview earlier this week, Bossio said that, if the CCCTE and other opposition groups are successful in seeing this change in legislation enacted, it would make approval of the proposed BREC all but an impossibility. “If (the MOE does) go ahead with the review… and pass legislation to change the act so that landfills can’t be built on fractured limestone, pretty much in and of itself, I think it would be very difficult for the MOE to then say ‘but it’s OK to go ahead with the BREC,’” said Bossio. “Even if WM does get their EA in prior to the legislation being changed, it stands to reason that (the MOE) rejected it once because of issues around contamination and environmental risk, how are you going to turn around and OK an EA when you’ve already passed legislation to say that it isn’t a good idea to build landfills on fractured limestone?”
Bossio also said that if the groups’ suggested changes are adopted, it will mean their fight WM is finally over. “It really behooves the MOE to step forward and finally settle this issue about where to locate dumps, for everybody’s sake,” he said. “I certainly don’t want to see another community go though what we’ve gone through for 15 years. It’s not right, it’s not fair, to (impose) that kind of burden.”
Randy Harris, manager of the BREC and the closed Richmond Landfill site, suggested that the changes proposed by the opposition groups are redundant in that WM still has to prove through its EA that its proposed new landfill will meet current environmental standards. Further, he said that as long as those environmental standards are met, there will be no risk to groundwater around the new landfill.
“If you follow the new regulations, it protects the environment in this type of geology. The BREC intends to meet or exceed today’s regulations, and they do protect the environment,” he said. “It has to be (able to be monitored) and it has to meet present-day regulations. You don’t have to worry about the geology if you do it by regulation.”
He said that the BREC would include a state-of-the-art liner and leachate collection system — something which is absent in old landfills around the province. “They continuously want to put out some kind of projection that modern landfills are still done like in the old days, where you put the garbage right on the rock in an old quarry or something,” he said. “There are rigorous liner systems and regulations and engineering that protect the ground water, that we’ll have to meet. It’s not like dumps in the old days.”
Harris also said that shipping garbage long distances is not environmentally friendly. “The most environmentally correct thing to do is to handle your waste close to the source,” he said. “We have to handle our waste. We can’t keep shipping it away, out of the country, hoping it will go away. It can be done right with these modern liners and these modern regulations.”
Under the EBR, the Environmental Commissioner will forward a copy of the application for review to the MOE, which administers the EPA. The ministry will have 60 days to decide whether the requested review will be conducted by ministry staff.
“You just don’t build dumps on fractured limestone, and I think it’s high time that the MOE finally put that issue to rest — not just for us but for all the other communities out there that are going to be dealing with this sort of issue,” said Bossio.

        No Means No! Residents, Mohawks and Environmentalists Apply for Changes in Ont. Landfill Law

(Toronto). Three participants in the long-standing fight against the Richmond Landfill near Napanee have formally applied to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario to request key changes to provincial legislation governing the siting of waste disposal sites.
The Concerned Citizens’ Committee/Tyendinaga & 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 (“EBR”).
The Application for Review focuses upon section 27 of Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”), which regulates the establishment and operation of waste disposal sites. As currently drafted, section 27 of the EPA 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 (“MOE”) 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.

To view a copy of the Application for Review, please go to:

EBR Application July 2013

In January 2012, the Ministry of the Environment re-issued the site licence under the Environmental Protection Act to impose new conditions upon the landfill owner (Waste Management of Canada Corporation) in relation to environmental monitoring, contingency plans, and reporting at the now-closed landfill. The CCCTE then applied to the Tribunal for leave (permission) to appeal seven of these conditions on the grounds that they were inadequate to protect the environment.

In its decision (linked PDF file below) dated March 30, 2012, the Tribunal agreed with the CCCTE that the conditions appeared to be unreasonable and insufficiently protective of the environment:

“The Tribunal finds that it appears there is good reason to believe that no reasonable person, having regard to relevant law and government policies, could have made the decision to issue the Environmental Compliance Approval to Waste Management of Canada Corporation, and that it appears that the decision in respect of which an Appeal is sought could result in significant harm to the environment, within the meaning of section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights (p.19).”

In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the Ministry’s acknowledgement of “the potential that the landfill may be causing contamination of groundwater” (page 13). The Tribunal also relied upon the Ministry’s hydrogeologist who interpreted recent data as indicating that “apparent landfill-related groundwater impacts” exist to the north and south of the waste fill area, and that “leachate is potentially extending off-site to the south of the landfill property (p.11).”

The Tribunal further noted:

“The Director asserts that the Ministry has assumed a worst-case scenario and has therefore required Waste Management of Canada Corporation to supply neighbouring residents with an alternate supply of water. The Tribunal finds that provision of alternative sources of drinking water, while appropriate, does not mitigate environmental harm. It may alleviate the effects of ecosystem impacts upon local residents, but it does not remedy the occurrence or severity of those impacts upon ecosystems (p.15).”

The Tribunal’s decision therefore allows the CCCTE to file a Notice of Appeal against the Director’s decision within the next two weeks.

“My client is pleased that the Tribunal has granted leave to appeal in this case,” stated Richard Lindgren, an environmental lawyer who represents the CCCTE. “We look forward to participating in the Tribunal’s hearings in order to present my client’s groundwater, surface water, and air quality concerns.”

“In our view, the highest priority is to ensure robust monitoring and effective contingency plans at the closed Richmond Landfill,” said Mike Bossio, Chairperson of the CCCTE. “In these circumstances, our group believes that it is premature and unacceptable for Waste Management to proceed with an environmental assessment for another new mega-landfill immediately beside the Richmond Landfill.”

At this time, it is unknown when the Tribunal will hold the appeal hearing in 2012. Once the hearing has been completed, the Tribunal will render a legally enforceable decision in relation to the conditions under appeal. In this case, the Tribunal has the authority to alter or revoke the Director’s decision, or to issue an order directing the Director to take such action as the Tribunal may specify in relation to this matter.

For more information, please contact:

Richard Lindgren (CELA) 613-385-1686

Mike Bossio (CCCTE) 613-396-6784

  download full text of the ERT March 30, 2012 Decision

Media Release By: Canadian Environmental Law Association