It is part of a financial agreement between the Resort Municipality of Whistler and the 2010 Olympic Organizing Committee (VANOC) explained chief administrative officer Bill Barratt.

Under the deal the RMOW will pay for paving upgrades needed for the 2010 Games, while VANOC will pay for the methane gas mitigation work needed at the site of the $46.8 million Rona High Performance Centre within the athletes’ village.

The deal cost the RMOW about $600,000 in paving, said Barratt.

It is not clear how much the methane work is costing VANOC, but its July board of directors meeting notes that $1.02 million was drawn from the contingency for methane gas mitigation work at the centre along with snow-making and ski run in-run out grading at Cypress and homologation work at the Vancouver Olympic/Paralympics Centre.

"It is a good financial plan," said Barratt, adding that it’s reflective of the strong partnership between the municipality and Olympic organizers.

Without the deal VANOC would have given the RMOW a cheque for paving and the RMOW would have given a cheque back to VANOC for methane mitigation, as it is the organization in charge of building the high performance centre, which includes an athletes training centre, a four storey lodge and 20 townhouses.

Other roadways receiving paving work are Glacier Drive, Nordic Drive, Taluswood Lane and Cheakamus Road.

The $150,000 work on Blackcomb Way also included sensor work on the lights at Lorimer Way and new service conduits, such as Hydro and communications, for the Whistler Medals Plaza.

Since the landfill, which produces the methane gas, is a municipal responsibility it would normally fall to the RMOW to pay for the gas mitigation work.

When it was decided to build the high performance centre and its components the cost of the methane mitigation was not accounted for. So VANOC, which designed and built the centre, agreed it would pay for the mitigation, if the RMOW took care of the paving needs for the Games.

The RMOW also contributed $3.65 million to the high performance centre.

Methane forms in landfills when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oxygen.

Bacteria in the landfill break down the trash in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic) because the landfill is airtight. A byproduct of this anaerobic breakdown is landfill gas, which contains approximately 50 per cent methane and 50 per cent carbon dioxide, with small amounts of nitrogen and oxygen. This presents a hazard because the methane can explode and/or burn. So, the landfill gas must be removed. To do this, a series of pipes are embedded within the landfill to collect the gas. In some landfills, this gas is vented or burned.

According to the RMOW, the methane emitted from the landfill is the biggest point source of GHG emissions in the municipality.

As part of the landfill closure project, the landfill was covered by a high-density polyethylene liner to prevent moisture from penetrating and creating contaminated leachate. The liner also traps landfill gases, preventing them from escaping into the surrounding atmosphere. A series of vertical wells and perforated pipes were installed under the liner to allow effective collection of the landfill gas.

It has been estimated that a total of 350,000 tonnes of waste were buried at the Whistler Landfill between the late 1970s and the landfill closure in November 2005. Until the first week of March 2007, this gas was escaping through the surface of the landfill into the atmosphere.

The landfill gas flare, temporarily located on top of the closed landfill, was put into operation on March 7, 2007. Collecting and flaring (burning) the gas converts the methane to carbon dioxide, significantly reducing its GHG potential.

The Ministry of Environment should immediately order the closing of the controversial Richmond Landfill site, Gord Miller, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner, recommends in his annual report, released yesterday (tues).

"The (commissioner) believes that there are compelling environmental reasons for (the ministry) to require the immediate, orderly closure of the site and no compelling social or economic reasons for continuing to keep it open," Miller states, in the report.

The site is operated by Waste Management of Canada. Spokesman Wes Muir, reached yesterday afternoon in Toronto, said he could not comment.

"We haven’t had a chance to review the report at this time and we’ll be providing comment at a later date," Muir said.

In 2006, the Ministry of the Environment rejected Waste Management’s bid to expand the landfill so that it could accept up to 750,000 tonnes of trash annually.

"The Richmond Landfill has been assessed for possible expansion and found to be deficient technically, an improper place to put a landfill site," Miller told the Whig-Standard, during a teleconference interview yesterday after the release of his report.

The site is still approved for 125,000 tonnes of garbage each year, but it is quickly running out of space and is now taking less than 15,000 tonnes yearly, Muir said.

The company has a closure plan that is under review by the ministry.

"We think there’s probably about three to four years left if you were to take the amount of waste that we have and that we anticipate will go in," he said.

Miller said it’s time for the ministry to close a "sad chapter in waste management" in the province

"They’ve been sort of sitting back and allowing the closure plan to be developed and taking a rather passive point of view even though they acknowledge the technical problems with the site," he said.

Environmental groups and neighbours of the site have been campaigning for years to have the site closed and have sought better monitoring of pollution leaking from the property.

Environmental lawyer Richard Lindgren represents two groups that have fought to have the landfill closed, a concerned citizens coalition and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte.

The groups say they are delighted with Miller’s recommendation.

"My clients’ concerns have been vindicated by the Environmental Commissioner’s report, and we look forward to timely action by the Ministry of the Environment to order immediate site closure," Lindgren said, in a release.

Miller cannot force the government to take action.

It’s believed that more than 20 million litres of leachate, a potentially toxic mix of fluid that percolates through the trash, is leaking into the ground each year.

Three groups filed applications a year ago through a provincial process demanding that the Ministry of the Environment stop Waste Management from putting any more trash in the site as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The groups also asked that the landfill be closed and a monitoring and reporting program be established to determine the "nature, extent and environmental fate of the leachate plume generated at the site."

It’s feared the leachate is leaking into and contaminating groundwater supplies and a nearby creek.

Waste Management maintains that its 70 groundwater monitoring wells show no impact to groundwater or surface water.

The ministry rejected the applications. It stated that the site is in compliance with a provisional certificate of approval and the ministry had already asked for changes to the monitoring program to allow the ministry to determine if water around the landfill is being affected by garbage juice leaking from the dump.

Miller’s report notes that the landfill was built on thin soil and fractured bedrock at a time before the Environmental Protection Act set strict guidelines for the establishment of landfills.

One of five sections of the landfill was built without a liner to block the flow of garbage juice.

Miller is critical of the Ministry of Environment’s rejection of the application filed last October.

"The (commissioner) believes (the ministry’s) decision to deny this application was unjustified," Miller writes in his report. "MOE’s contention that the ‘eration of the Richmond Landfill in accordance with its (certificates of approval) … does not have potential for harm to the environment’ contradicts the expert hydrogeology opinions provided by its own staff and the applicants."

Miller writes that the ministry’s statements and actions "undermine its decision to deny this review."

"Not only is the geology of the area inherently unsuitable for waste disposal, neither (the ministry) nor (Waste Management Canada) has identified any pressing need or public good for allowing the site to continue to receive wastes," Miller’s report states.

"Since the site currently receives only about 10 per cent of its historical volumes of waste, the (commissioner) does not believe that there would be any undue social or economic hardship to the area if the site were closed."

Waste Management could apply again to expand the site.

"We have not publicly announced any plans right now, we’re looking at our options right now … and what we would do with that current site," Muir said.

He said there is a shortage of landfill space in the province.

"We’re shipping over 3 million tonnes to Michigan and now upstate New York," he said. "A lot of waste from eastern Ontario is going to upstate New York because there just simply is a lack of disposal capacity in the province of Ontario."

Miller questions whether there is a landfill shortage.

"If the capacity is in such short supply, why is the fill rate (at Richmond) so low?" Miller wondered.

"They’ve dropped off from being a major landfill to filling at a very slow rate as they get towards their maximum capacity."

A recent spell of rainy weather may derail efforts to complete Freeport’s landfill project prior to the arrival of winter.

Sue Grans, spokesperson for William Charles Construction, said Wednesday the contractor remains optimistic about finishing the project this fall. However, Grans acknowledged recent weather has put the project’s completion in jeopardy.

“We feel comfortable that we are on schedule,” Grans said. “But the rain has not helped and the days are getting shorter.”

William Charles Construction is the project’s primary contractor. However, the closure effort includes the City of Freeport, engineering firm Fehr-Graham & Associates, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ben Bushman, project manager for Fehr-Graham, said Thursday he expects the majority of the landfill’s cover system to be completed this fall. However, contractors may struggle to establish the necessary “grass cover.”

“All of the earth moving will be complete this fall,” Bushman said. “Everything else is weather dependent, primarily the seeding.”

The vegetation, Bushman explained, serves more than an aesthetic purpose.

“If we cannot get adequate grass cover, we will run the risk of erosion, mainly due to the spring thaw,” he said.

Playing from Behind

The odds were stacked against William Charles Construction from the beginning.

After collecting five bids for the landfill closure project, the City of Freeport awarded the project to Loberg Excavating in June. The contractor’s $1.6 million bid was more than $300,000 lower than the initial bid from William Charles Construction.

The decision quickly drew criticism from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150.

At a June 1 City Council meeting, union representatives argued Loberg’s lack of landfill-specific experience (the contractor had never conducted the closure of a landfill) would ultimately lead to problems.

Two months later, the city was forced to find a new contractor after Loberg Excavating failed to secure a performance bond for the project. The city negotiated directly with William Charles Construction and the Freeport City Council voted unanimously to award the contract to the company. William Charles began the project within weeks.

“They were able to mobilize very quickly,” Freeport Community Development Director Shelly Griswold said. “And for the first few weeks, we had sunny weather. Unfortunately, we have had rain since then.”

The city first identified the need to close the landfill in 1995, and saved approximately $1.5 million in its landfill closure fund. The city plans to pay William Charles Construction $1.9 million for the project, which is about $300,000 more than the city was slated to pay Loberg.

Wes Muir, director of communications for Waste Management, said the recommendation contained in Gord Miller’s annual report came as a surprise to his company. The site, he said, has active certificates of approval issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

“We were disappointed the environmental commissioner chose not to contact us to discuss this matter with us,” Muir said. “The Ministry of the Environment objected an opposition group’s request to close the site. What they came back with late last year is that our landfill is in accordance with its certificates of approval and … the ministry inspects our site for compliance.”

Muir said the monitoring looks into ground and surface water as well as air quality. Results indicate the site is safe, he said.

However, in his annual report released Tuesday, Miller said the landfill is “inherently unsuitable for waste disposal.”

Muir said that is Miller’s opinion and, in the report, his comments of disagreement with the MoE are simply that, one man’s opinion.

“We have never been contacted by the commissioner or the commissioner’s office to talk about this matter and we would welcome the opportunity for he and his staff to come to our site and review our data,” Muir said.

Miller’s recommendation does not necessarily mean the site will close prematurely — it is estimated the site can continue receiving garbage for another three or four years — and Muir would not speculate on what may happen should the MoE follow through on the immediate closure. He said the site can still receive approximately 10,000 tonnes of garbage per year.

Richmond Landfill received waste from a number of area municipalities but Muir admitted a lot of garbage from eastern Ontario is currently being shipped to Michigan and New York.

“There’s a lack of capacity in this province, specifically acutely to eastern Ontario,” he said. “We have made a decision on where we are going to go in respect to future plans but we’ve been listening to the Napanee solid waste advisory committee and we’ve been looking at the provincial policies on waste diversion and we’ve been opening up a lot of waste diversion and recycling initiatives as we ramp down land filling,” he said.

The potential closure of the dump, however, would not have a direct impact to Belleville as none of the trash generated by residents here finds its way to the Richmond Landfill site. The city’s garbage is all trucked to Michigan and New York.

The Board of Health, landfill manager Mike Valenti and a representative from Environmental Partners (the company engineering the project) provided selectmen with an updated plan for the landfill Monday night.

The landfill, located on Hobomock Street in front of the new recycling center, has not been used since the mid 1970s. The state Department of Environmental Protection has ordered the town to formally close the landfill by sealing, or “capping,” it with certain materials.

Board of Health member Lisa Cullity described the landfill cap as “a really giant, thick pool cover.”

The Board of Health has been studying the landfill for about 15 years, determining what’s buried, where and how deep, Cullity said.

The old plan was to truck in a large volume of contaminated materials, from big construction sites and other projects, to place over the old landfill and help cover the cost of the capping. Essentially, people would pay to get rid of their trash in Pembroke.

But a changing economy, less availability of materials and a lower price that likely would cover just 20 percent of the anticipated capping cost have led Pembroke officials to consider other options.

Environmental Partners was brought in about four months ago to help.

Company principal Mark White said, under the old plan, trucks would have brought in as much as 600,000 yards of material to fill in the site. There would have been a truck traveling through the center of town delivering materials every couple of minutes, Monday through Friday for about two years.

Several towns that have followed this plan have faced problems with managing the materials, both the cost of personnel and tracking what exactly is being dumped, Cullity said. The “fill” plan also would have left Pembroke with a hilly area that would not be usable for much more than walking over.

The new plan is to seal the approximately 20-acre landfill with a more permeable sandy/silty material rather than clay, allowed by the state DEP because studies have shown that what’s buried in the landfill is not dangerous.

“We have 15 years of gas study that show what’s in our ground just isn’t that bad. It just isn’t that harmful,” Cullity said.

Trucks still would have to deliver the cover material, but it would take a lot less with no fill material and a thinner cap of less than two feet, she said.

Including grading, drainage and construction, the project would cost an estimated $2.5 million, White said. The Board of Health receives about $50,000 every year at Town Meeting to cover ongoing engineering costs for the landfill closure.

The new design would make Pembroke eligible for low-interest loans from the state’s revolving fund, White said. Potential post-closure projects include renewable energy developments (wind and solar), walking paths connecting Hobomock Street with Learning Lane and a skate park.

“These are all things that make the state look at our project and say we’re not just looking for a money grab to slap a cover on our landfill and walk away,” Cullity said. “They want to see landfills turned into community assets, not community eyesores.”

White said they planned to prepare the site for closure and solicit bids during fiscal year 2012, two summers from now. Other projects, such as the skate park, could be started earlier and worked into the closure schedule.

Buena vista is dealing with a different problem that many landfills have. During a landfill closure a membrane is placed on the surface of the cap. This membrane is supposed to keep methane from leaking out into the atmosphere. The problem is that methane will seek the holes in the membrane and escape into the air. Then the landfill must find where the leak is coming from. That is a never ending chase of the ever elusive leak. With Top-Seal, if you ever have a leak in a general area, you simply apply a small amount to the area and roll it in. The leak will be repaired and the methane will stay where it is supposed to. The following story is a good example of what else can go wrong with a landfill.

WATSONVILLE – Leaking methane at the Buena Vista Landfill has prompted state regulators to add the facility to a black list of chronic violators.

A full report of the problem is still being compiled, but officials with the California Integrated Waste Management Board confirmed Friday that emissions of methane gas have exceeded standards for months, forcing the agency to downgrade the status of the county-run site last week to noncompliance.

The listing, while providing little detail on the safety risk at the facility or its rural environs west of Highway 1, requires the county to commit to a quick fix.

“Basically natural gas is migrating underground at the site and to the surface,” said Chris Peck, a spokesman for the Integrated Waste Management Board. “The concern here is it can be explosive if it’s in a confined space.”

County officials said the elevated levels of methane, which is produced as trash decomposes, had not been detected above ground and therefore was not presenting a hazard to landfill employees or neighbors.

Maintenance facilities are located at the Buena Vista Drive site, and the Sheriff’s Rountree Jail is among the few structures nearby.

“We’re actively correcting it,” said Kasey Kolassa, the county’s recycling and solid waste services manager.

Kolassa pinpointed the problem to an older section of landfill where extraction wells in the ground were not adequately drawing up the methane being emitted by solid waste. Normally, the wells act as part of a vacuum system that captures the gas and directs it to a plant for the production of electricity.

“Usually you can control it, but in this one area it hasn’t happened,” Kolassa said.

While adjustments to the vacuum system appeared to have provided some improvement, they’ve fallen short, he said.

County officials say they are now planning to design and install two new extraction wells within 120 days, at a cost of $30,000.

State regulators have not said whether the plan is acceptable but, by law, must provide the satisfactory terms of compliance by the end of the month.

The county landfill is the newest of 10 landfills on the waste board’s official inventory of facilities in violation of state standards.