CITY OF VANCOUVER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
D. H. Rudberg, P.Eng., General Manager
T. R. Timm, P.Eng., Deputy City Engineer
M E M O R A N D U M 13 January 2003
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering Services
CC: Judy Rogers, City Manager
Syd Baxter, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Vancouver Landfill: Closure Plan for Western 40 Hectares
January 16, 2003, Standing Committee on Planning and Environment Item Number 3
At its meeting of December 10, 2002, Vancouver City Council referred the Report titled "Vancouver Landfill: Closure Plan for the Western 40 Hectares" to the January 16, 2003, Standing Committee on Planning and Environment for consideration. On December 18, Brian Davies, Assistant City Engineer, Solid Waste Division and Paul Henderson and Lynn Belanger of the Transfer and Landfill Operations Branch met with Councillor Fred Bass to discuss concerns that he raised at the Council meeting. This memo summarizes the information that was provided to Councillor Bass and provides responses to the concerns he raised.
In response to a Request for Proposals by the City, the "Vancouver Landfill: Closure Plan for the Western 40 Hectares" Council Report recommends awarding a consulting contract to Sperling Hansen Engineering to develop a closure plan for the Western 40 Hectares of the Vancouver Landfill.
A copy of each of the three proposals to develop the closure plan was provided to Councillor Bass at the December 18th meeting. Copies of the three proposals are available by contacting Paul Henderson at 604.940.3201.
Staff provided Councillor Bass with an overview of the Vancouver Landfill, including details on why the Closure Plan is required. In historic agreements between Vancouver and Delta, construction of the Landfill was to have a flat topography with a maximum height of approximately 12 metres. In 1993, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection issued the Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste, which specify a 4% minimum slope on all landfill surfaces to promote drainage. The Vancouver Landfill's Operational Certificate (OC) issued by the Provincial Government requires that a closure plan for the Western 40 Hectares be developed. The closure plan must specify a sloped final contour plan to promote drainage.
Four specific concerns raised by Councillor Bass are presented below.
1. Additional details were requested on Sperling Hansen's optional tasks mentioned on page 5 of the Council report.
Details on the selected optional tasks are presented in my December 9th memo (attached). It was clarified that approximately 95% of Sperling Hansen's proposed budget was recommended in the Council report. Tasks that were not recommended were tasks that staff considered unnecessary at this time. For example, a task that was not recommended was developing a maintenance plan for landscaping. Since final landscaping will not be selected as part of this project, it seemed unnecessary to specify landscape maintenance at this time.
2. Has there been an independent environmental impact assessment done of Burns Bog?
Councillor Bass requested further information on the Burns Bog Ecosystem Review conducted by the provincial government in 1999. The Executive Summary and Conclusions of the Burns Bog Ecosystem Review Synthesis Report are enclosed. Additional information can be found at www.eao.gov.bc.ca/special/home.htm.
In the 1999 Vancouver Landfill Vancouver - Delta Agreement, it was agreed that the Landfill has an additional capacity of 20 million tonnes as of October 1, 1997. The Landfill's Design and Operations Plan details the fill plan for the site. The existing landfill footprint, east of the Western 40 Hectares, will be filled to an elevation of 39 metres over approximately 40 years. Approximately 300 of the 635 hectares owned by Vancouver will be surplus to landfilling needs and will be given to Delta for parkland.
The Western 40 Hectares is immediately adjacent to a 230-ha parcel of native bog land that is being given to Delta. As such, consideration is required of the interface between the Western 40 Hectares and this adjacent bog area. This important task was identified in Sperling Hansen's proposal.
3. How does this fit into the future use of biomass fuel?
The merits of biomass fuels were discussed in the context of the disposal of municipal solid waste in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). For a number of reasons, including low energy costs in British Columbia, incineration of garbage is more costly than disposal in a well operated landfill.
Woodwaste demolition materials are proposed as the primary material for recontouring the Western 40 Hectares. The main reasons for using demolition materials were discussed in my December 9th memo. By using demolition materials to recontour the area, closure of the area will be essentially self-funding, as revenues from demolition materials will offset future closure costs. If demolition materials were not used to recontour the area, the only other option would be to use local soils. The result would be that this project would take much longer to complete, and no revenues would be generated.
Biosolids have been proposed for use in construction of the berm along the southern edge of the Western 40 Hectares. The purpose of the berm is to screen closure activities from Highway 99 and the main Landfill access road. Biosolids from the Iona Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) are proposed for several reasons. Historically, biosolids from this plant have been stockpiled in lagoons on the Iona site for treatment. These biosolids have stabilized such that they have the physical characteristics of sandy loam, which make them ideal for constructing a berm. A use for these biosolids is needed, as space at the Iona WWTP is limited. The Landfill is in close proximity to the Iona WWTP thereby minimizing costs for transportation. Most of the beneficial use options for GVRD WWTP biosolids are at locations in the interior of BC.
Annacis Island WWTP biosolids are proposed for amending Iona biosolids used in the construction of the berm since these biosolids are higher in nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which are beneficial to plant growth. The berm will be planted with native plants and fast-growing trees so that adequate screening will be achieved over the time required for recontouring.
Compared to incineration or other disposal options, the GVRD prefers beneficial use of biosolids as a fertilizer or soil supplement in local projects. In the past, biosolids have been incinerated, but at a substantial cost. Natural gas was also required to supplement the energy value in the biosolids to complete the combustion.
4. Why is Sperling Hansen's proposal recommended at a higher cost?
The project steering committee, comprised of staff from Vancouver, GVRD and Delta, all agreed that Sperling Hansen's proposal was superior to the other two proposals responding to our RFP. The following reasons are listed in the Council report:
· Sperling Hansen has considerable landfill experience in British Columbia, especially with Vancouver Landfill projects, including the 2000 Design and Operations Plan.
· Sperling Hansen has significant experience in landfill closure, having completed many landfill closures in BC (11 designs in the last five years), including large municipal landfills such as Victoria's Hartland Phase 1 and Nanaimo Regional Landfill.
· The Sperling Hansen proposal includes the services of Golder Associates which is currently working on the VLF Leachate Upgrades Project and the Landfill Gas System Expansion Project. Sperling Hansen's team also includes members with extensive experience in golf course design and biosolids reuse.
· Sperling Hansen's proposal contained more detail on all aspects of the project, which will provide a more comprehensive closure plan. Several optional tasks were included demonstrating their understanding of the project and the completeness of their proposal. For instance, Sperling Hansen proposed investigating the interface between the Landfill and the Northern 230 Hectare area as an optional task.
· Sperling Hansen's closure plan was ranked the highest with respect to meeting stakeholders' needs and environmental protection objectives, maximizing end use options and being economically effective.
In summary, Sperling Hansen proposed the most experienced team, demonstrated the clearest understanding of the project and the City's needs and proposed a number of optional tasks that will improve the final product. Given the importance of developing a closure plan that meets the needs of each of Vancouver, Delta and GVRD, it is imperative that the City selects the best project proponent. The additional cost of the Sperling Hansen proposal will be more than offset by the value provided by ensuring the final product meets the needs of Vancouver, Delta and GVRD.
If you require further information on this Council report, please contact Brian Davies, Assistant City Engineer, Solid Waste Division.
_______________________________________
D.H. Rudberg, P.Eng
General Manager of Engineering Services
Enclosure LCB/ 0291a-lcb.doc