Concerned citizens oppose leachate plan at Richmond Landfill

Author of the article:

Meghan Balogh

Published Aug 29, 2025  •  Last updated 3 days ago  •  5 minute read

Article content

NAPANEE — A group of concerned citizens that has been working to hold corporate giant Waste Management to account for decades is drawing attention to a new proposal for managing toxic runoff from its retired Richmond Landfill dump site in Napanee.

The retired dump site, owned by North America-wide company Waste Management, is located a handful of kilometres northwest of the town proper, near Tyendinaga Township and right at the headwaters of Marysville Creek, according to the Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE).

The CCCTE and the Canadian Environmental Law Association has jointly submitted a letter to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), dated Aug. 22, opposing a proposed hydraulic control system that would see leachate — contaminated groundwater that contains unsafe levels of chemicals such as 1,4 dioxane, a leachate indicator — from the decommissioned dump site pumped up from monitoring wells and placed into the property’s stormwater pond system.

Ian Munro is a member of the Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE), a group raising new concerns about the Richmond Landfill site in Greater Napanee. He’s pictured outside the landfill on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025.

 Munro has been fighting for transparency and accountability at the Richmond Landfill site since the early 2000s. The CCCTE worked with experts to reveal contaminated wells on neighbouring properties, pushing to tighten monitoring of the leachate plume, whose spread has unhoused some of the landfill’s neighbours over the years.

Other local residents are being provided with alternative water supplies by Waste Management.

“It’s basically a question of justice,” Munro told the Whig-Standard on Wednesday, describing local residents who didn’t know that their wells had been contaminated and had gone about their lives, drinking, bathing and cooking with water from their wells.

“I want to see this through,” he said. “I want to see this landfill forever closed. I don’t want to see another one here.”

But the letter cautioning against the proposed hydraulic control system to deal with contaminated groundwater is just one more cog in the wheel that is the ongoing fight against a proposed expansion at the old dump site.

“The Beechwood Road Environmental Centre is still on the table,” Munro marvelled to the Whig, expressing disbelief.

An MECP-approved terms of reference document for the proposed Beechwood Road Environmental Centre project at the property still exists and could be taken up at any time, Munro said.

That fact feels extra surreal to Munro in the face of the 2015 Environmental Review Tribunal ruling that ordered Waste Management to improve its environmental monitoring plan for the site, after the CCCTE and its lawyer and hydrogeologist testified during weeks’ worth of hearings.

In January 2016, the Belleville Intelligencer reported that the “ERT found the landfill is contaminating groundwater beyond the boundary of the landfill and private, domestic wells have been contaminated.”

The ERT also found that contingency action was needed to bring the landfill site into compliance with regulatory requirements.

“To me it’s kind of ludicrous that they still have this possibility that could start tomorrow — environmental assessments, public meetings and presentations, engineering studies,” Munro said. “The process would probably take five to 10 years, but they could start it any time.”

The site’s track record alone is reason not to dump leachate above ground, the CCCTE and Munro argue.

 “Given this background, experience, and public interest perspective, the CCCTE has carefully reviewed the modified HCS proposal and the supporting documentation recently provided by the Ministry,” the letter to the MECP states. “This ongoing review has identified numerous data gaps, questionable methodology, and unsubstantiated conclusions in the January 2022 ECA application and the August 13, 2025 ‘design’ documentation filed by the proponent.”

The CCCTE has worked with hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland through its fight with Waste Management, and Ruland has produced data over the years to demonstrate what works — and what doesn’t — for safely dissipating contaminated water, above and below ground.

A report produced by Ruland in 2022 provided several reasons why the hydraulic control system should not be approved, including a lack of consideration that the leachate effluent quality “will gradually worsen over time as the purse wells continuously pump groundwater to the stormwater pond,” the letter states.

“This is because the wells will serve as a new low point in the local groundwater flow system, which will induce inward flow of leachate contaminants toward the HCS and create the risk of upward hydraulic gradients that facilitate the upwelling of saline/briny water from deeper groundwater,” the letter states.

The potential upsetting of local groundwater quality by continuously drawing to the surface at these wells is worrying, Munro said.

“(The local groundwater) is good potable groundwater down to about 30 metres underground,” Munro explained, excluding the contaminated area around the dump. “Below that is saline — if they start pumping continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year from these wells, what could happen is that the saline, which is much denser, could start to rise up. Saline is absolutely toxic. If you put that on a farmer’s field it will die. It could ruin the aquifer. This is something we’re concerned about.”

In a comment provided to the Whig-Standard on Wednesday, a representative from Waste Management said that the Richmond Landfill is closed and “remains in good standing with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP).”

“WM fully complies with all applicable environmental regulations and permit requirements, and the site is regularly monitored to ensure ongoing compliance,” the statement read. “We are confident that our systems and oversight measures are protective of community health and the environment, and we will continue to work closely with regulators to ensure the site is managed responsibly.”

Munro and others are skeptical, and while the conversation currently centres around the proposed new leachate management system, the looming proposed BREC project remains on people’s minds.

“Every time we catch them doing something wrong is more evidence they should not be trusted with an even bigger dump on this site,” he said. “This huge long history is very damning for Waste Management, and we’re reminding the public what’s gone down. It’s a ludicrous concept.”

mbalogh@postmedia.com

Richmond Landfill’s contamination problem resurfaced in the town of Napanee at this week’s council meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 2023.

Kingstonist

Ian Munro, a long-time member of the Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE), made a deputation at the meeting to update Council on the state of the landfill site on Beechwood Road.

Munro made Council aware of an attempt by Waste Management Inc. (WM) to bring the closed landfill into compliance with Ontario laws and regulations. WM has submitted three applications to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for approval, said Munro. He wanted Council to understand that, in the expert opinion of the CCCTE’s hydrogeologist, the proposals are “not adequate to protect human health and the local environment” from being exposed to noxious chemicals.

Munro stated that the decisions on these applications are expected to be issued in the coming weeks, and the Town of Greater Napanee Council should be aware of the implications.

There are two main conclusions for Napanee, stated Munro. “First, this landfill should never have been located at this location given the complex groundwater environment, and there should never be an expansion of this facility. Second, the currently proposed ‘solutions’ to the off-site groundwater contamination are untested and potentially very dangerous.”

At the outset of his deputation, Munro said, “I know I have a 10-minute limit [to speak], and I’m happy to live within that. But please understand that what I’m giving you tonight is a ‘Coles’ Notes’ version. There are plenty of resources out there for you to learn more.”

Munro then set the scene by going over the history of the Richmond Landfill site, explaining that the landfill was started in 1950, was expanded dramatically in the 1980s, and was immediately sold to a corporate waste company. Then it was sold in the 1990s to WM, which sought to undertake a massive expansion of the dump.

“That particular proposal was rejected in 2006 because the site was not safe,” Munro explained. “It took the MECP six more years after that to order the landfill to be closed… and it took until 2012 to get it closed.”

In 2012, CCCTE, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, and Napanee Green Lights challenged MECP and WM at an environmental review tribunal to ensure safe long-term monitoring. “This process proved the landfill was contaminating the groundwater, despite years of denials by Waste Management,” noted Munro. Due to the tribunal decision, WM is required to “delineate” the extent of “leachate contamination” and bring the site into compliance with Ontario laws and regulations.

An image from Munro’s presentation to Council shows the landfill site as a grey rectangle at the top of this map. The red area on the map represents the current plume of leachate contaminating the groundwater. Screen captured image.

Munro reported that, in 2022, MECP declared the contamination plume to be “reasonably delineated” — in his opinion, “a very strange selection of words.” The CCCTE does not agree with that conclusion, mostly due to issues related to the privately owned property located to the east of the landfill, he said. “Very little testing is being carried out on that property due to a lack of agreement between Waste Management and [landowners] the Martins… so that’s the basis of our concerns about the delineation.”

Munro presented maps to illustrate the group’s concern. “Waste Management, a year ago, submitted applications to get approval for their latest environmental monitoring plan, the Contaminant Attenuation Zone [represented on the map by a dotted line], and a controversial purge well system to manage the contamination onto the neighbouring Martin property. And, perhaps most controversial of all, they’re seeking approval to pump that contaminated water from the ground and deposit it onto the surface, in the stormwater control ponds, south of the landfill.”

Monro emphasized that “as far as I know, and as far as our expert hydrogeologist knows, this is the first time such a proposal has been considered by Ontario. It’s a very strange approach.”

According to Munro, the proposed hydraulic control system poses major risks. First, he said, there is no guarantee that it will work as Waste Management expects, due to very limited testing. “There’s no evidence yet that it could even work. It has been used in other environments where it’s not a fractured limestone base, with success. But this [landfill site’s fractured limestone base] is a completely different environment.”

An image from Munro’s presentation showed the proposed purge well system. Screen captured image.

Second, he said, it could actually make the situation much worse by causing deep saline water to upwell, drawing contaminated water from further underneath the landfill and bringing it to the surface, thereby increasing groundwater contamination.

Third, pumping contaminated groundwater onto the surface and allowing it to flow into the Beechwood ditch poses danger to those downstream, as it flows into Marysville Creek. Munro called this the “most gobsmacking proposal: [to] take this contaminated water and basically dump it into the creek, indirectly.”

Munro said the CCCTE met with MECP on April 11, 2023, and were advised that approval of these applications is expected by the end of May 2023. “Based on what we know at this point, these applications do not address the significant concerns of our hydrogeologist. There is a potentially serious threat to human health and the environment posed by these proposals. [But] in spite of that, MECP appears to be on the verge of approving these applications.”

Munro surmised that in the best-case scenario, the proposal will lower the exposure to the single property to the east of the landfill, but increase the exposure to many properties to the west and downstream on Callaghan Road and including Tyendinaga Township and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte.

“In the worst case scenario,” he reiterated, “it will make matters much worse by drawing highly dangerous saline to the surface and spreading it around.”

He left Council with options he said they should consider. The first was to confirm the Town of Greater Napanee’s earlier resolutions declaring Napanee to be an unwilling host for any expanded landfill at this site. Also, assuming the WM applications are in fact approved, the Town could appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal within 15 days, or partner with concerned citizens and neighbouring communities (Tyendinaga Township and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte) to file a combined appeal.

After councillors had a chance to clarify their understanding of the presentation, Mayor Terry Richardson thanked Munro, admitting that the landfill situation may have slipped out of the current Council’s sphere of awareness. “I know that most of us weren’t around when this whole process started with Waste Management. So for most of us, even in the last term of Council, we didn’t really experience a lot of it,” he said.

As always, you can read full Council meeting agendas on Napanee’s civic web online, and watch meetings live or recorded on the town’s YouTube channel.

“Whereas the existing Richmond landfill is situated on a fractured limestone base,

And whereas the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has been quoted as saying that the Richmond Landfill “is arguably one of the worst sites in Ontario to ever locate landfill”,

And whereas the Richmond landfill has been shown to have contaminated the groundwater on neighbouring properties within the Town of Greater Napanee with landfill leachate,

And Whereas the groundwater contamination plume from the Richmond landfill has contaminated 6 private domestic wells,

And Whereas most neighbouring residents and farmers rely on well water,

And Whereas the proposed Beechwood Road Environmental Centre (BREC) landfill is proposed to be located just north of the existing Richmond landfill on the same fractured limestone base,

And Whereas independent studies have shown that all landfill liners will fail long before the end of the landfill contaminating lifespan which is estimated at more than 100 years has been reached,

Be it resolved that Town of Town of Greater Napanee (TGN) declares itself to be an unwilling host for the BREC landfill;
And be it further resolved that TGN requests that WM permanently withdraw their application to locate a landfill on their property adjacent to the Richmond Landfill;

And be it further resolved that TGN requests the MOECC to take the necessary steps to end the BREC Environmental Assessment process.”

An investigation into off-site leachate contamination from the Richmond Landfill has found that the probable carcinogen 1,4 dioxane is present in off-site groundwater and in the domestic wells of neighbouring properties. These test results were obtained as a consequence of an ongoing legal challenge mounted by Concerned Citizens and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte.

The off-site movement of leachate, suspected for years, was confirmed by hydrogeologists working for the Concerned Citizens, the Mohawks and the Ministry of the Environment.
Despite considerable investigation, Waste Management (WM) has not yet determined the geographic extent of the migration.

WM and the Ministry have agreed that the off-site leachate migration is causing impacts in excess of Reasonable Use Limits, congtrary to the Envrironmnetal Compliance Approval issued for the Richmond Landfill. “In spite of Waste Management’s numerous past claims to the contrary, the off-site leachate leakage has occurred for many years and contaminated residential wells.” Said Wilf Ruland, hydrogeologist for the Concerned Citizens. He went on to say “The company had monitored the site for years, and missed it entirely.”

Leachate sample collected from Richmond Landfill received at the Greater Napanee sewage plant for treatment before being released into the Napanee River. The sludge is spread on regional farms as a solid
waste fertilizer.

1,4 Dioxane

This leachate contains 1,4 dioxane, a chemical highly soluble in water, does not bind to soils and readily leaches into groundwater. It is also resistant to naturally occurring biodegradation processes. While there is not yet a drinking water standard set in Ontario, the concentrations found in off-site wells far exceeds the drinking water criteria established in most American States. 1,4 dioxane cannot be treated with conventional water treatment practices.

As we step into the new year, concerned citizens enter year sixteen in stopping Waste Management (WM) from trying again to build a mega dump on fractured bedrock in Napanee. In 2006, the Minister of Environment turned down the company’s first attempt because of its failure to adequately characterize the complex geology at the site.

In 2012 the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) allowed WM to start an environmental assessment of a second proposal to build a mega dump in Napanee. However, the environmental assessment process has been stalled since concerned citizens forced WM to undertake proper investigations in the closure of its existing 60 year old Richmond Landfill.

WM’s Richmond Landfill closure plan is currently being challenged by local residents and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) in a process under the Environmental Review Tribunal, an independent and quasi-judicial body of Ontario. The investigations have been revealing and the results disturbing.

Last week, the Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE) held a press conference in Napanee to inform the broader public of the results of these investigations. A massive leachate plume has moved off WM’s property and onto adjacent properties and has contaminated six private wells. Five of these properties have been purchased by WM. The leachate contains 1,4 dioxane, classified as a probable carcinogen. Off-site contamination from the landfill (which also includes other chemicals) exceeds the MOE’s Reasonable Use policy guidelines.

The senior hydrogeologist for the CCCTE, Wilf Ruland, stated, ” The only reason the off-site contamination was found, was diligent sleuthing by hydrogeologists working for the CCCTE, MBQ and MOE. It was the CCCTE, MBQ, and MOE hydrogeologists who in 2012 and 2013 raised and documented concerns about off-site contamination and Reasonable Use policy exceedances.”

Napanee’s closest neighbors, Tyendinaga Township and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, have partnered with the CCCTE to hold WM accountable for the leaking landfill. In light of WM’s poor performance in understanding the site conditions of their closed landfill, it is clear the company should not be given permission to build a new mega dump beside the leaking old one. We must work together to make sure it is never approved.

Stephen Bruce Medd
Greater Napanee
Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE)

Details on what is known about the spread of leachate south of the Richmond Landfill are discussed in this information bulletin from the Concerned Citizens.

Information is offered about the contaminant found in test wells.

        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