OPINION: Transparency on Contaminated Soil

Accepting local contaminated soil for $15k per year is not the same as becoming the major recipient in an Acid Mine Remediation Project 200km away.

Yes… Other councils may have authorized a small amout of local contaminated soil at $15,000 per year. But did they approve receiving entire remediation projects from over 200km away for hundreds of thousands per year?

Last week I wrote two articles on the news that West Nipissing was chosen to accept 8,000 metric tonnes of contaminated soil from the Serpent River First Nation (SRFN) with more coming in 2025.

Sturgeon Landfill Accepts 8,000 Tonnes of Contaminated Soil

In the following days, there were many public comments on the subject. Some board members for West Nipissing Environmental Services (WNES) demanded more information while others defended this decision as simply an operational matter that should not be discussed with the public or the board.

I made my own statement on this story, stating that I do not have an opinion on whether it is a good idea to accept this soil or not. But what I do want is transparency. A lot more…Unfortunately for some reason, this municipality has become allergic to this concept for many years now.

In my reporting this week and as pointed out by many people, West Nipissing has always accepted contaminated soil. The 2023 financials show they made $14,580 doing so.

In my opinion, the story was not the fact that West Nipissing was accepting contaminated soil. The story is that they have recently agreed to vastly expand this operation (by a factor of 10). Without any public consultation. And without even discussing it with council or the board of WNES.

Former councillor and Environmental Chair, Paul Finlay had a similar sentiment. He acknowledged that West Nipissing has accepted contaminated soils in the past. But not like this.

Former Councillor and Environmental Chair Raises Alarm Over Contaminated Soil at Sturgeon Falls Landfill

There are additional reasons to question this expansion. One of which is the impact that an additional hundreds of dump trucks using our roads will have on our ageing infrastructure. Another is the environmental cost of 500+ dump trucks each burning hundreds of litres of diesel to make the 400km return trip.

But the municipality does receive a financial incentive to receive this soil. And although the overall budget seems perpetually in a shortfall resulting in a third straight nearly 5% tax increase, the added revenues may eventually climb us out of our financial hole.

Accountability & Transparency

When I was made aware of this developing story over a week ago, I sent a detailed email to the manager of WNES stating I was going to be publishing a story. I asked for any comment they may have and asked for specific details on the contaminated soil program. I followed up again last week with this manager as well as the board of WNES and the town CAO.

I have not once received a response to my questions.

Board member Dave Lewington who has never been shy on asking questions was faced with a brick wall when he attempted to get specifics. Although he could historically get information for the WNES manager, he was told last week that all inquiries would hereby go directly through the CAO of the municipality. No explanation was given and the CAO noted that he would only responded if "he felt the need” showing a hostile approach to this story.

Last week, after the West Nip Voice article on the subject reached thousands of readers, the municipality finally issued a press release. They stated that they only accept the non-hazardous portion of contaminated soil. But they did not deny the assertions from SRFN that they were the sole receiving of their 8,000 tonnes so far.

The release did not provide any specifics on this particular remediation project or why this soil was deemed too dangerous to remain in SRFN but somehow safe to dispose of here.

When defending staff’s decision on accepting this soil, Councillor Rivard answered a skeptical resident by saying that accepting contaminated soil was a decision that prior councils made while trying to get himself off the hook.

Yes… Other councils may have authorized a small amount of local contaminated soil at $15,000 per year. But did they approve receiving entire remediation projects from over 200km away for hundreds of thousands per year? Prior councils may have agreed to help local contractors remediating our own local sites. Did they anticipate that we would be helping other communities get rid of soil so high in arsenic that it poses risks to their local waterways?

I don’t think so…

The public should have been informed of this 10x expansion in this controversial activity. At the very least, the board of WNES which is elected to represent citizens should have been provided ample details and had a discussion on it. The SRFN project that will continue into 2025 may be the right fit financially for West Nipissing but only after the public and elected officials have discussed the matter.