To read the complete report click here: CCCTE Comments ON PROPOSED CAZ JUNE 1, 2016

There is evidence that leachate is migrating off-site from the Richmond Landfill Site and causing off-site groundwater impacts.

Due to the fractured limestone on which it is located, determining the extent of the leak, and containing the contamination, is extremely difficult.

Neighbours, including residents of: The Town of Greater Napanee, Tyendinaga Township, Deseronto, and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, fear the impacts this will have on the aquifers that supply their drinking water.

In spite of this Waste Management is proposing to locate a new dump beside the old one that is four times its size (400,000 Tonnes/year). They have rebranded the dump as ‘The Beechwood Road Environmental Centre’.

Many volunteers have donated their time and expertise in this battle. We have a formidable legal team from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and we have retained the best technical experts to help us understand the complex scientific implications of this landfill.  This is an expensive fight.

With their help we have successfully appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal to strengthen the scrutiny and management of the closed site.

You have the opportunity to help us. We are conducting a raffle to raise the money we need to pay for the experts.

To sell tickets please contact Cheryl Furlong at cherylfurlong07@aol.com

Click Here for details on where to Buy Your Ticket.

Mike Bossio

Chair, Concerned Citizens

One of the documents we have which was issued by the MOE on Sept 30, 2010 is Condition 35 of your Certificate of Approval which orders you to close the Landfill by June 30, 2011.  The complete order can be viewed here(pdf). It states:

‘ The Owner shall ensure that no waste is received for disposal at the Site after June 30, 2011 and the site is capped with final cover material in accordance with the timelines presented below.’

Given that this order has been issued, Randy, we were surprised that you would state in your open letter to the public:

‘The Ministry of the Environment did not order the closure of our landfill’

As part of our request for an Environmental Tribunal Review of the monitoring of the closed landfill, we have affidavits from Waste Management and the MOE. In his affidavit sworn on Feb 17, 2012, Kyle Stephenson, MOE Hydrogeologist states:

‘The current work includes an assessment of impacts identified directly south of the landfill in the area of a particular group of domestic wells. These wells have been included in the monitoring program. In addition to sampling these wells in an ongoing monitoring program, the ministry has also required provision of bottled water or whole house water supplies.‘

Given that the MOE has required you to provide the water supply we are surprised that you imply that you have voluntarily done so.

In the same letter ad you claim:

‘At Waste Management, we believe it is essential that we are open and transparent with the community..’

This reminds us that your company refused to make public their recent Financial Assurance Calculations for the Richmond Landfill on the grounds that they contained ‘competitive information’. We were only able to obtain this information from the MOE through a formal Freedom Of Information request.
What we found when we finally accessed their calculations was that the company had reduced the contamination life span from 300 years (their own calculation in the previous EA) to 39 years. There was no explanation offered for the change. This had the effect of reducing the Financial Assurance funding that is required by law for the operator to set aside (among other things) to fund future remediation efforts (if required).

We are very disappointed that you were not entirely open and transparent in the public letter that you posted in the local Napanee papers (with statements that contradict the public record).  It certainly raises questions about other claims made by Waste Management.

None of this inspires confidence in your ability to manage the well-documented risks of landfilling here.  The first important step to risk management is to truthfully acknowledge that the risks exist.

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

- “There are potential groundwater quality problems evident on all sides of the Richmond Landfill, with anomalous water quality results at distances of up to hundreds of meters from the landfill” (page 4);

- “In my professional opinion, the most likely cause for many of the cases of anomalous water quality is leakage from the nearby Richmond Landfill” (page 18); and

- “Table 2a confirms that the landfill was certainly impacting surface water quality in 2006-2008… Iron and copper exceeded the [Provincial Water Quality Objectives] level in the 2006-2008 period, and in previous years as well. Un-ionized ammonia was over the PWQO limit in November 2006 and occasionally in prior years” (page 6).

“We are alarmed and shocked by Mr. Ruland’s findings, which substantiate our grave concerns about leachate leakage, detection and remediation at this vulnerable setting,” stated Mike Bossio, Chair of the Concerned Citizens – Tyendinaga & Environs (CCTE), which retained Mr. Ruland to conduct his independent review of recent WM documentation.

“Our clients are calling upon the Ministry of the Environment to immediately act upon Mr. Ruland’s 17 recommendations regarding the Richmond Landfill,” said Richard Lindgren, an environmental lawyer who represents the CCTE. “Moreover, it is our opinion that Mr. Ruland’s report raises serious questions about whether WM should be proceeding with its proposed Beechwood Road Environmental Centre landfill beside the existing Richmond Landfill.”

For more information, please contact:  

Richard Lindgren – CELA (613-385-1686)

Mike Bossio – CCCTE Chair (613-396-6784)

Related Information:

Nov 03 2008

Richmond Landfill: Chronology of Environmental Concerns

Media Release By: Canadian Environmental Law Association