Former Councillor and Environmental Chair Raises Alarm Over Contaminated Soil at Sturgeon Falls Landfill
Readers react as board member Rivard defends decision while Lewington demands answers.
Paul Finley, former West Nipissing councillor and Chair of West Nipissing Environmental Services (WNES), has voiced deep concerns over the recent acceptance of 8,000 tonnes of contaminated soil at the Sturgeon Falls landfill. Drawing on his experience with municipal waste management, Finley warns that the landfill’s evolving practices may signal a dangerous departure from its original mission.
“I find this matter most distressing,” Finley stated. “While there has always been a policy regarding acceptance of contaminated soil, this was limited to low-level waste, such as material from decommissioned service stations, which was used as a cover at the landfill. The idea was that it would aerate and gradually dissipate over time.”
Finley emphasized that, during his tenure, the landfill’s operations never contemplated accepting toxic industrial waste. He suggested that the rules governing soil acceptance may have been “bent or relaxed over time,” a trend he attributes to a lack of both internal and external oversight.
“It has been 10 years or so since I was a councillor, but this is what so often occurs when there is no opposition or oversight,” Finley explained.
Councillor Rivard Defends the Decision
While Finley raised concerns, Councillor Kris Rivard, a current WNES board member and the Green Party’s local candidate, defended the decision. Rivard surprised many by endorsing Sturgeon Falls as the disposal site for the 8,000 tonnes of arsenic-contaminated soil.
On his Facebook page, Rivard stated: “I understand any concerns this may cause, but I trust that our municipal staff and any environmental agency involved are making sure regulations and best practices are followed.”
He added that the soil provides revenue for landfill operations, writing, “This has been going on for years and has been very beneficial for the municipality.”
Rivard’s stance seems at odds with the provincial Green Party, which has historically questioned the Ford government’s environmental regulations for being too lenient. The party has also opposed the practice of cities transporting waste to distant locations.
Board Member Lewington Demands Answers
Another WNES board member, Dave Lewington, took a different stance. While acknowledging that the municipality has historically accepted contaminated soil, Lewington raised concerns about the scale of this particular project.
Lewington requested further details to both the board and the public. He requested a press release outlining what tests are being conducted locally and emphasized that the board had not been given specific details about this latest agreement.
Lewington also criticized Rivard’s approach, stating that Rivard seemed to be giving the municipality a a free pass on the issue without demanding accountability or further transparency.
Readers React
“If it’s safe soil, then why can’t it stay where it is?”
The story has sparked significant public backlash and questions. Supporters of the decision argue that West Nipissing only accepts “safe contaminated soil.”
However, these assurances have been met with skepticism. One reader summed up public concerns with a pointed question:
“The Serpent River First Nation has suffered because this soil has contaminated their environment. It poses risks to their water systems. The federal government is paying millions to extract this dangerous soil. But somehow it is deemed safe?”
The public’s growing unease underscores a central issue: If the soil is truly safe, why was it removed in the first place?
The West Nip Voice is a regular newsletter covering issues in West Nipissing and the surrounding area. Please consider becoming a subscriber.
This is very concerning to the residents of West Nipissing. Isn't there enough cases of cancer and dementia in our towns? Do we have to add more causes for concern? If this soil was safe enough for us it should be safe enough for Serpent River to keep! Please reconsider!
I wonder if Rivard will pay for the lawsuits if or when people get sick. The ones working at the landfill site will be more at risk.