City of Toronto
REPORT No. 3A
OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(from its meeting on March 25, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
at its Special Meeting
on April 28 and May 1, 1998
1
Deposit/Return System for Alcoholic
and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers
(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, amended this Clause by adding
thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) the report dated April 9, 1998, from the City Solicitor, entitled 'Implementation of
a Deposit/Return System for Wine and Spirit Containers', embodying the following
recommendation, be adopted:
'It is recommended that, should City Council wish to proceed with the
implementation of a deposit/return system for beverage containers, the Province of
Ontario be requested to enact legislation granting the City the power to do so.';
(2) City Council endorse the following Resolution which was adopted by the Council of
the Township of Hagarty and Richards at its meeting held on January 20, 1998:
'WHEREAS the ratepayers of the municipality of Hagarty & Richards and all
municipalities in Ontario are paying for ever-increasing costs of recyclable items;
and
WHEREAS the Brewers' Retail in Ontario maintains a deposit and refund system
for their containers;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HAGARTY & RICHARDS
COUNCIL THAT the manufacturers of products placed in containers be required
to offer a deposit and refund system for the return of these containers to the place of
purchase once empty.';
(3) City Council endorse the proposal of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority
pertaining to the pilot project as embodied in the communication dated March 24,
1998, addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, from the
General Manager, Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority, for a deposit/return system
for LCBO containers at three communities within the County of Essex;
(4) all LCBO containers be banned from the City of Toronto's blue box program and
landfill sites effective September 1, 1998;
(5) the deposit/return system and by-law being developed by City staff include a
provision which would allow City Council to include or exclude various beverage
container types, such as cans;
(6) the Minister of Environment be requested to set up a product stewardship program
that makes producers fully responsible for the economic costs and environmental
impacts of the products and associated packaging they produce over their life cycle
and that eliminates municipal taxpayer subsidies for the collection, reuse, recycling
and disposal of these products and associated packaging;
(7) the product stewardship program include: zero waste to disposal as an ideal to work
toward to motivate continual improvement; the 3Rs waste management hierarchy;
fair and equitable treatment of all producers, whether domestic or foreign; a
convenient system for consumers to return products to producers; and phase-out of
non-refillable beverage containers over the long term;
(8) the Minister of Environment be requested to establish a multi-stakeholder
consultation on methods for meeting refillables targets which takes as a given that
a comprehensive deposit/return system with increasing levels of refillable beverage
containers across a broad array of beverage types will be in use in Ontario;
(9) the Province of Ontario be requested to:
(a) institute, through regulation, a comprehensive deposit/return system for
beverage containers, with specific refillables targets set and a timetable for
achieving these targets;
(b) develop an education and promotion program regarding deposit/return
systems, product take-back and reuse;
(c) provide a share of the environmental levy to pay for the City's recycling
program; and
(d) introduce legislation to allow refillable containers in the wine and
agricultural industries;
(10) the regulation require that empty beverage containers be returned to retail stores
with adequate compensation for retailers to fully cover their handling costs;
(11) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:
(a) develop a communications program to have homeowners return their wine
and spirit containers to the point of purchase, such communications program
to include an announcement of a wine and spirit container take-back
program in the next issue of the City of Toronto's 'Waste Watch' newsletter;
and
(b) bring forth a by-law to require a deposit/return system in the City of Toronto
for all other beverage containers;
(12) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the City
Solicitor, be:
(a) requested to submit to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee,
a draft by-law for a deposit/return system for LCBO containers sold in the
City of Toronto; and
(b) authorized to retain outside counsel, if necessary;
(13) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report
to the Works and Utilities Committee on:
(a) establishing a depot system which would allow residents to return wine
bottles, soft drink containers, etc., on a voluntary basis, for recycling; and
(b) the use of bottle return machines that provide a cash refund and the
possibility of having the program sponsored by non-profit volunteer groups;
(14) at such time as the by-laws come forward, the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works and Utilities
Committee on the costs and benefits of keeping aluminum cans as part of the Blue
Box system, such report to include:
(a) employment in the aluminum recycling industry;
(b) environmental implications; and
(c) potential loss of municipal revenue;
(15 ) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to organize a
one-day conference, to be held in the Council Chambers of Metro Hall, during late
May or early June, 1998, which will address the economic and environmental costs
and benefits of implementing comprehensive deposit/return regulations for beverage
containers in Ontario, with presentations by academic and professional guest
speakers who are knowledgeable concerning these issues;
(16 ) funds not to exceed $15,000.00 be provided from the Works and Emergency Services
Department's budget for promotion and education to pay for the costs associated
with the conference, including the reasonable per diem travel and accommodation
expenses of guests speakers, promotion of the conference, and related expenditures;
(17) a session of the conference be devoted to discussing the development of a
Province-wide strategy to create a coalition of municipalities and environmental
organizations interested in achieving comprehensive deposit/return regulations for
beverage containers sold in Ontario and in achieving full product stewardship for
all other packaging waste such that the management of this waste results in zero
municipal cost to Ontario municipalities; and
(18) the City Clerk be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the
Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.")
(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of
Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that:
(1) City Council reiterate its request to the Province of Ontario to permit Province-wide
implementation of a deposit/return system;
(2) the Province of Ontario be requested to pass enabling legislation to permit
deposit/return in the City of Toronto; and
(3) that the Provincial opposition parties be advised of such action.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:
(1) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor to:
(i) develop a proposal for such enabling legislation;
(ii) continue their investigation to determine whether a deposit/return system could be
implemented without enabling legislation;
(iii) submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on April 16, 1998, on legal
remedies for the implementation of a deposit/return system; and
(iv) submit a report to the Committee at its next meeting, scheduled to be held on
April 22, 1998, on measures that can be undertaken with respect to licensing at the
retail or distribution level;
(2) requested that Mr. Robert Power, solicitor with the firm of Outerbridge, Miller, Sefton,
Willms and Shier, be invited to appear before the Committee at its next meeting; and
(3) noted that appropriate arrangements will be made related to the organization of an event on
Earth Day, April 22, 1998, or in Earth Week, respecting deposit/return systems.
The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:
Purpose:
To provide City Council with sufficient information to decide whether the implementation of
deposit/ return for wine and spirit and other beverage containers is appropriate.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Adoption of this report will have no immediate influence on the costs of the City's waste
management system. However, if the volume of waste managed under the system is reduced with
the implementation of a deposit/return system for recyclable or reusable items, the annual cost of the
City's waste management system is estimated to be lower. Deposit/return for only wine and spirit
containers is estimated to reduce the cost of the City's waste management system by approximately
$1,000,000.00 per year following full implementation. Comprehensive deposit/return for all
alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers is estimated to reduce the cost of the City's waste
management system by approximately $4,750,000.00 per year following full implementation. These
figures are based on 1997 actual expenditures and revenues, however, they are applied to preliminary
estimates of recyclable materials in the waste that is landfilled.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information, and be considered in conjunction with
the confidential report submitted by the City Solicitor.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Previous resolutions of the former City of Toronto and Metropolitan Councils and their committees,
which are background to this report, are summarized in Appendix A.
At its meeting of January 14, 1998, your Committee requested that a report be submitted on:
"(i) the implementation of a deposit/return system for all beverage, wine and spirit
containers in the City of Toronto; and
(ii) the implications of withdrawing the collection of such materials from the Blue Box
Program."
At its meeting of February 4 and 5, 1998, City Council adopted the recommendation of your
Committee that:
"(A) (1) ... in addition to the Council direction to staff of September 24 and 25, 1997,
by the adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and
Public Space Committee, as amended, the Commissioner of Works develop
a plan to mandate a deposit/return system being established for wine and
spirit beverage containers sold in the new City of Toronto;
(2) ... the Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works, report on
any legal remedies that may be used to help establish a deposit/return system
for wine and spirit beverage containers sold in the new City of Toronto;
(3) ... the Commissioner of Works' and Solicitor's reports be presented to the
appropriate Committee of the new City of Toronto Council at the first
available opportunity; and
(4) ... the Commissioner of Works pursue this matter with his peers across the
Province of Ontario;
and further, that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the
necessary action to give effect thereto;
(B) that the Province of Ontario be requested to:
(1) immediately mandate a deposit/return system for all beverage, wine and spirit
containers; and
(2) reimburse the City of Toronto in the amount of approximately $2.2 million
for the costs of handling Liquor Control Board of Ontario containers; and
(C) the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to support the
aforementioned recommendations with respect to deposit/return systems."
(Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Works and Utilities Committee.)
City Council, at its meeting of February 4 and 5, 1998, amended the above-mentioned clause by
adding the following:
"It is further recommended that the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management,
in responding to the direction of the Committee, be requested to separate the issue of wine
and spirit containers from the issue of all other beverage containers when reporting thereon
to the Committee."
At its meeting on February 11, 1998, your Committee reviewed a report dated January 28, 1998,
from my Department entitled "Deposit/Return System for Wine and Spirit Containers in the City of
Toronto and Implications of Withdrawing Collection of These Materials in the Blue Box Program",
in which it was noted that the Waste Management Transition Work Group of the Works and
Transportation Service Review Team is currently assessing, in detail, information previously
developed by the various parts of the City regarding the issues of product stewardship, blue box
funding and beverage container deposit/return so as to develop a consistent set of data that reflects
information developed by the constituent components of the City, and that the information developed
by this Group will be before your Committee at its meeting of March 25, 1998.
Executive Summary:
This report addresses the implications for the City of instituting a comprehensive deposit/return
system for all beverage containers excluding milk containers. In this report, wine, spirit and beer
beverage containers will be referred to as alcoholic beverage containers, and other beverage
containers will be referred to as non-alcoholic beverage containers. It is also assumed that beverage
containers returned under a deposit/return system will be recycled, and that the rate of return of
containers under a deposit/return system is 85 percent of the total sales. Refill of containers is not
specifically addressed in this report. The estimated quantities and costs in this report are preliminary
and subject to refinement as the accounting systems of the constituent municipalities of the City are
brought to a common basis, and as additional information is developed regarding generation rates
for recyclable materials.
Comprehensive deposit/return for all beverage containers is estimated to decrease the City's overall
waste management costs by approximately $4,750,000.00 per year, increase waste diversion from
landfill measured by weight from 15 percent to 17.4 percent (excluding organic yard waste diversion
of 59,000 tonnes per year, or approximately 7 percent) and reduce the amount of material landfilled
in the City by approximately 24,000 tonnes per year, or an approximate diversion increase of
2.5 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by approximately 34,000 tonnes per year
and would contribute to 0.6 percent of the City's goal of greenhouse gas reduction, based on the
Metro "State of the Environment" Report, 1995. The estimated flow of alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverage containers to landfill and virgin materials required, with and without deposit/return, are
shown in Figures 1 and 2.
The report concludes that deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers will be
financially beneficial to the City, will significantly improve the performance of the City's waste
management system and will strengthen the financial and operational stability of the blue box and
other City waste diversion systems.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Method of data gathering and analysis:
The data in this report, with the exception of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is a result of analysis
carried out by a staff team with representation from most of the former Area Municipalities and the
former Metro Works Department. The overall analysis is the result of a combined effort of this
subgroup. The staff team used an independent financial auditor as a reference in the development
of their costing model and to review the findings presented in this report. However, a detailed audit
of the costs was beyond the scope of the involvement of the financial auditor. The data presented
in this report is the best information available at this time. It is emphasized that the issue of cost
allocation for waste management activities is complex and that the costs and quantities estimated
in this report are derived from the constituent parts of the new City of Toronto with seven different
accounting systems and seven different data management systems. The quantities of recyclable
materials in garbage collected by the City are estimates utilized in the Preliminary Metro 3Rs
Strategy prepared by the Metro Works Department, dated November 28, 1996.
Diversion and fixed cost assumptions:
All estimates of cost savings resulting from deposit/return shown in this report are based on
85 percent of all containers returned under a deposit/return system and 20 percent of the collection
and transfer costs of recyclable materials being fixed and not related to volumes of recyclable
materials collected and processed. In order to confirm the conclusions of this report, a sensitivity
analysis was carried out using lower capture rates under deposit/return, higher fixed costs for
collection and transfer and lower overall estimated generation rates for containers. This analysis
resulted in a range of cost saving estimates up to 20 percent lower than shown in this report.
As a result of this sensitivity analysis, it is concluded that the costs and quantities shown in this
report are realistic and representative of the best information available at this time, and that it is
appropriate to make policy decisions based on this information. However, it is also emphasized, as
noted above, that all estimates of costs and generation and diversion quantities are subject to further
review and refinement. In this report it has also been assumed that residents use their blue boxes to
recycle beverage containers to a far higher level than they use the blue box to recycle other
containers of the same material. This assumption was made to ensure that the estimated savings
resulting from deposit/ return are not overstated.
In the report it has also been assumed that a deposit/return system will capture 85 percent of eligible
materials from both the recycling and garbage streams of waste. It is likely that, under a deposit/
return system, most eligible containers subject to a deposit would be removed from the blue box
where they are visible, but would not be removed from the garbage. Because we have estimated that
the average net recycling cost for container materials is greater than garbage collection and disposal
costs, the effect of these assumptions is to potentially understate savings resulting from deposit/
return. The above assumptions were made because there is no local information regarding actual
set out of these types of containers in the blue box under a deposit/return system.
Analysis year for costs and implications for potential operational change:
Costs in this report are estimated using the City waste management system expenditures and
revenues for 1997. System costs will change as new disposal capacity and processing capacity are
added. However, the cost changes for options shown in this report will also apply to future system
costs.
Issues related to deposit/return:
Your Committee has requested that a report be presented which addresses a number of complex and
interrelated issues. In order to clearly address these issues, the report is broken down into six
sections as follows:
(1) Existing waste management costs and estimated waste management costs following a
deposit/ return system;
(2) Implementation of deposit/return for wine and spirit containers and/or non-alcoholic
beverage containers;
(3) Compatibility of deposit/return system with blue box recycling system;
(4) Responsibility for waste management costs;
(5) Funding support from the Province of Ontario for recycling programs; and
(6) Global greenhouse gas emission impacts.
(1) Existing waste management costs and estimated waste management costs following a
deposit/ return system:
(a) Estimates of quantities in the existing recycling system and in the garbage:
The performance of the City's existing recycling system can best be understood in
considering the volumes of materials collected in the blue, grey and green box system
and the amounts that are collected as garbage. In estimating these amounts, it should
be noted that collected and processed quantities of recycled materials are known as
a result of weighing under the City's data management system. However, the total
quantity of the same material types contained in garbage collected by the City is an
estimate based on waste surveys and other information. This estimate is based on an
analysis carried out and reported in the Preliminary Metro 3Rs Strategy prepared for
the Metro Works Department, dated November 28, 1996. The estimates of large
fractions of eligible recyclable waste, such as paper and glass, can be estimated with
greater certainty than estimates of small fractions of waste, such as aluminum cans.
The accurate estimation of high value materials in the waste stream, such as
aluminum, is important in considering future waste management systems, and the
level of resources that should be expended to recover such materials.
The quantities of garbage and recyclable materials described in this report do not
include privately collected garbage and recyclable materials. However, the impact
of deposit/return on greenhouse gas emissions from privately collected recyclable
materials is assessed. It is estimated that approximately 940,000 tonnes of private
sector waste is generated in the City, approximately 640,000 tonnes of which was
delivered to our facilities, and approximately 300,000 tonnes of which was exported
to other disposal and recycling facilities. Other data sources used in calculating the
estimated quantities of materials used to conduct the analysis in this report include
the Canadian Soft Drink Association (CSDA) website, the Recycling Council of
Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
While there is little evidence to support the position that more beverage container
waste is recovered through the blue box than other container waste, over the next
several months staff will be attempting to determine with greater certainty the
relative amounts of these various beverage and non-beverage containers which exist
in the waste stream.
(b) Estimated impacts of deposit/return on costs and quantities of recyclable materials
landfilled and associated benefits:
Table 1 shows the quantities of blue box materials that would be captured by a
deposit/return system and the alcoholic beverage container and/or non-alcoholic
beverage container quantities of the same materials that would not be landfilled in
the City's disposal system under a deposit/return system and the cost savings
resulting from the removal of these materials from the recycling and landfill system.
A deposit/ return system would also increase the City's diversion rate by
approximately 2.5 percent and reduce the total amount of landfill of beverage
containers, as shown in Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 1, based on current prices received for materials,
deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers is estimated to
result in cost savings of approximately $4,750,000.00 per year and increase diversion
from landfill by approximately 21,000 tonnes per year, based on a return rate of
85 percent for all beverage containers. The estimated cost savings shown in Table
1 are based on the avoided costs of not recycling and landfilling the various
materials, of which alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers are made. These
cost savings per tonne of material are different from the average cost of recycling and
landfilling, as shown in Table 3A.
For comparison, Table 3B shows estimated costs of the management of municipally
collected waste based on market prices for fibre materials and the expected future
cost of landfill disposal of approximately $50.00 per tonne. The estimated flows of
alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers, landfill and virgin material
requirements each year are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
(2) Implementation of deposit/return for alcoholic and/or non-alcoholic beverage containers:
The City Solicitor will report separately to your Committee on any legal remedies that may
be used to help establish a deposit/return system.
(3) Compatibility of deposit/return with blue box recycling system:
Under deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers, the cost of the
City's waste management system would decrease by approximately $4,750,000.00 per year.
Therefore, the City will have relatively more resources to support the remaining waste
management programs. This should strengthen the blue box program and make it easier for
the City to pursue other waste management approaches such as organics processing. This
would achieve higher levels of diversion of City waste from landfill than would be the case
for similar expenditure of City funds without deposit/return. This conclusion is supported
by conclusions contained in a report (January 27, 1993) entitled "Bottle Bills and Curbside
Recycling: Are They Compatible?", prepared by the United States Congressional Research
Service, which states:
"Studies suggest that local governments would achieve a greater diversion of solid
waste from curbside disposal at a lower cost per ton if both a bottle bill and a
curbside collection program were in place."
(4) Responsibility for waste management costs:
Much of the recent publicity regarding waste management costs has failed to address the
issue of who should pay these costs. Waste management costs can be paid through
municipal taxes, user fees or by the producer. Each of these options is reviewed below.
(a) Municipal Taxes:
The existing waste management system, which is largely funded through municipal
taxes, has a net cost of approximately $77,000,000.00 per year and, based on the
estimates shown in Table 4, could increase in cost to approximately $126,000,000.00
per year in 2002 with no increased waste processing capacity. A significant portion
of the taxes that fund the system are paid by commercial businesses that receive no
City waste management services (generally retail and office and industrial premises).
Because there are no direct costs to the users for waste management services, there
are no direct incentives to the users of the system to divert waste from landfill or to
purchase goods that minimize waste management and environmental impacts. There
are also no financial incentives for manufacturers to produce and market products
that minimize waste management and environmental impacts.
On the other hand, the existing property and business tax funded waste management
system results in a universal and cost-effective waste management system, for which
the gross cost is currently about 10 cents per day, per person receiving service for
collection, processing and disposal of all municipally collected waste.
(b) User Fees:
User fees result in the user paying the actual cost of waste management services.
Such fees can range from a flat rate per residence to a weight based or per container
fee. In many municipalities where user fees have been implemented, recycling is
provided free, which results in increased recycling and reduced garbage disposal. As
can be seen from Table 3A, recycling of container materials is more expensive than
landfilling these materials; hence a shift towards increased recycling of many
container materials will increase the cost of the waste management system and the
total fees required.
Unless a municipal monopoly is maintained, private waste management operators
may be able to offer waste management services (which may not include
comprehensive recycling services) to residents at a lower cost than any user fees
charged by the City. If residents transfer to service by private contractors, this could
result in financial instability of a user fee based municipal waste management
system, and contribute to a need to charge increased fees to the remaining users of
the system or to reduce services provided. The actual introduction of user pay will
also introduce a cost for collecting fees which will increase the cost of the waste
management system.
In summary, user pay is likely to result in increased recycling. Increased recycling
of container materials, other than aluminum, will result in increased costs to
residents. User pay will also result in decreased municipal taxes charged to
businesses. It could also result in financial instability of the existing comprehensive
City waste management system.
(c) Producer Responsibility (Product Stewardship):
Under this system, the producer of a product is responsible for waste management
costs either by designing the product such that it does not impact the municipal waste
management system (as is the case for Ontario beer containers), or by contributing
financially to the cost of the waste management system (as was formerly the case
with Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. (OMMRI)).
Deposit/return is a form of product stewardship. Full product stewardship
encourages the producer to minimize the impacts of the products on the waste
management system, and allows the producer to do this in an innovative and
entrepreneurial fashion. This allows private sector creativity to minimize costs and
product environmental impacts.
Product stewardship models can be bureaucratic, and it is important to design such
systems to minimize bureaucracy and maximize the potential for innovation. Of
course, the "producer" does not actually pay for the cost of product stewardship: this
cost is actually borne by the purchaser of the product as noted in the Executive
Summary of this report. However, these increased costs may be lower than the
reduced cost of municipal waste management, resulting in an overall saving to the
consumer. Various studies have been produced to date with no conclusive evidence
as to whether the net cost to the consumer increases or decreases under product
stewardship.
The alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage industries, with the exception of the
Ontario beer industry, which currently manages its own containers, would encounter
additional costs in managing the containers of their products under such a system.
These additional costs have not been stated by the affected industries. However, the
beer industry advised in 1997 that the net cost of the existing system of deposit/return
for beer containers is approximately $40 million per year for Ontario or $7 million
per year for beer sold in Toronto. In 1997, the beer industry sold approximately
1.8 billion containers. The net cost for managing each beer container is
approximately 1.8 cents. Approximately 315 million beer containers are marketed
per year in Toronto. Excluding beer, approximately 43 million glass alcoholic
beverage containers are marketed in the City by the LCBO, along with approximately
one million PET alcoholic beverage containers. Additional alcoholic beverage
containers are marketed by other wine stores. Approximately 600 million
non-alcoholic containers are marketed each year in the City.
This report concludes that deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage
containers will be financially beneficial to the City, will significantly improve the
performance of the City's waste management system and will strengthen the
financial and operational stability of the blue box and other City waste diversion
systems.
(5) Funding support from the Province of Ontario for recycling programs:
While the Province of Ontario has provided substantial financial support to establish waste
diversion programs, this financial support has diminished in recent years as the programs
have matured. It may be reasonable to request the Province to allocate some or all of the
Environmental Levy (approximately $37 million per year) on LCBO containers to municipal
waste diversion programs, recognizing the impact that LCBO containers have on those
programs. This would enable municipalities to bring waste diversion programs into a more
financially sustainable position while the Province addresses in detail the potential for a
Province-wide deposit/return system.
(6) Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts as a result of recycling versus new
production of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers:
Deposit/return systems are commonly used for both refilling containers and recycling of
recovered materials. Information regarding the relative environmental merits of using
deposit/ return for the refilling or recycling of containers is somewhat inconclusive. Recent
evidence suggests that when comparing containers of the same materials, refilling containers
approximately eight or more times has lower impacts than recycling containers. However,
in estimating reductions of energy use and CO2 emission reductions for the purpose of this
report, it has been assumed that all recovered materials will be recycled rather than reused.
Greenhouse gas reduction estimates are solely based on the amounts of material that will be
recycled instead of landfilled under a deposit/return system.
It is estimated that deposit/return for all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers will
reduce the City's contribution to global CO2 production by 34,000 tonnes per year or
0.6 percent of the City's GHG reduction goal based on diversion of container materials, other
than glass from landfill to recycling, under deposit/return. This is summarized in Table 5.
This analysis excludes an estimate of greenhouse gas reductions for increased glass recycling
because GHG reduction data for glass recycling was unavailable from the source document
used in this calculation.
A report for the United States Environmental Protection Office entitled "Preliminary
Analysis: The Costs and Benefits of Bottle Bills," January 1995, states:
"Elevated recycling rates due to bottle bills (*) reduce many types of air and water
pollution including greenhouse gas emissions. One possible method of evaluation
of these benefits, the system of evaluation developed in the Tellus Institute
Packaging Study, suggests that the reduction in emissions would be worth $1.60 per
capita annually. Most of the benefit is due to reduced power plant emissions
resulting from the increase in aluminum recycling. Greenhouse gas emissions from
bottle bills could amount to 1.74 million metric tons of carbon nationwide, again
largely due to the increase in aluminum recycling."
* The term "bottle bill" legislation refers to deposit/return for drink containers in the
United States.
The evaluation conducted by City staff also indicates that, of all subject materials, the
elevated recovery of aluminum associated with overall increased material recovery under
deposit/ return would result in the greatest contribution to reduced CO2 emissions.
Approximately 29,000 tonnes (85 percent) per year of reduced CO2 emissions are estimated
to result from increased aluminum can recovery.
As noted earlier, there is some uncertainty concerning the total quantity of aluminum and the
total quantity of aluminum beverage containers in the municipally collected waste stream.
However, because deposit/return systems are considered to be highly effective at removing
subject materials from both publicly and privately collected waste, the benefits with regard
to CO2 reduction described above are likely to be achieved regardless whether the subject
material is generated by individuals whose waste is collected either publicly or privately.
It is also important to understand that material volumes contribute to the generation of CO2
emissions in the collection and transfer components of waste management systems. For
example, one collection vehicle can carry approximately seven tonnes of paper and, for each
tonne of paper collected, approximately 4.4 litres of fuel are used and 12 kilograms of CO2
are emitted. Two collection vehicles are required to carry approximately seven tonnes of
blue box container materials, which result in the use of approximately eight litres of fuel, and
the emission of approximately 22 kilograms of CO2 (approximately 183 percent of the
amount for the collection of a tonne of paper) for each tonne of blue box material collected.
If the composition of blue box container materials changes, for example, by substituting
lower density containers for higher density containers, then the number of collection vehicles
required for the collection of a given weight of containers will increase, and hence, CO2
emissions per tonne of material collected will increase. These potential reductions in CO2
emissions resulting from deposit/return are not included in the estimates shown in Table 5.
Summary:
Under a deposit/return system for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers, it is estimated
that the City's diversion rate will increase by approximately 2.5 percent and annual waste
management costs will decline by approximately $4,750,000.00 per year. Carbon dioxide emissions
will decrease by approximately 34,000 tonnes per year, contributing up to 0.6 percent to the City's
goal of 20 percent greenhouse gas reduction.
Based on the analysis described in this report, there will be significant cost benefits to the City and
environmental benefits in implementing deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage
containers. These benefits must be weighed against the increased costs and inconvenience to
consumers that will result from the implementation of deposit/return for these containers.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
John Warren, Director of Operations and Sanitation
Toronto Community Council Area
Phone: (416) 392-1846; Fax: (416) 392-0396
E-Mail: "jwarren2@city.toronto.on.ca"
Appendix A
Resolutions of the Former City of Toronto and Metropolitan Councils
and Their Committees
At its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, in considering Clause 97 contained in Report No. 11
of the City Services Committee, the former City of Toronto Council:
"1. Requested that the Commissioner of City Works Services, in consultation with the Metro
Commissioner of Works and other area municipality Works Commissioners, determine the
full system costs for managing non-refundable alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage
containers in the municipal solid waste stream, including the costs associated with garbage
and recyclable material collection, transfer, marketing, and disposal of non-recovered
beverage containers for the consideration of the Council of the new City of Toronto.
5. Endorsed, in principle, the action taken by North York City Council, supported the extension
of the North York By-law to all beverage containers, and deferred passage of a by-law to
impose recycling/disposal charges upon the retailers and producers of all beverage containers
for the consideration of the new City of Toronto's Council in 1998 and, in the meantime,
instructed the appropriate City staff to consult with staff of the other Area Municipalities and
Metro with respect to determining the costs of collection and disposal and monitoring the
operation of any municipal by-laws coming into force before the end of 1998."
At its meeting of December 10 and 18, 1997, the Metropolitan Council adopted the
recommendations of the Environment and Public Space Committee:
"(1) That in addition to the Council direction to staff of September 24 and 25, 1997, by the
adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space
Committee, as amended, the Commissioner of Works develop a plan to mandate a
deposit/return system being established for wine and spirit beverage containers sold in the
new City of Toronto;
(2) that the Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works, report on any legal
remedies that may be used to help establish a deposit/return system for wine and spirit
beverage containers sold in the new City of Toronto; and
(3) that the Commissioner of Works' and Solicitor's reports be presented to the appropriate
Committee of the new City of Toronto Council at the first available opportunity."
(Clause No. 2 contained in Report No. 13 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, adopted
by Metropolitan Council at its meeting of December 10 and 18, 1997.)
Table 1
Estimated Impact of Deposit/Return (85% Capture)
on Recycling and Landfill Volumes and Costs
Based on 1997 Costs and Managed Volumes*
Item |
Processed
Through the
Recycling
System |
Processed
Through the
Garbage
Collection
System |
Totals |
Alcoholic Beverage Containers
Without Deposit/Return - Tonnes |
11,000 |
7,500 |
18,500 |
Amount of Alcoholic Beverage
Containers With Deposit/Return -
Tonnes |
1,650 |
1,125 |
2,775 |
Annual Saving in Cost, Deposit/
Return Alcoholic Beverage
Containers |
$750,000 |
$250,000 |
$1,000,000 |
Amount of Non-Alcoholic
Beverage Containers Without
Deposit/Return - Tonnes |
10,000 |
17,000 |
27,000 |
Amount of Non-Alcoholic
Beverage Containers With
Deposit/Return - Tonnes |
1,500 |
2,500 |
4,000 |
Annual Saving in Cost, With
Deposit/Return of Non-Alcoholic
Beverage Containers |
$2,750,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$3,750,000 |
Annual Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers
Without Deposit/Return - Tonnes |
21,000 |
24,500 |
45,500 |
Annual Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers
With Deposit/Return - Tonnes |
3,150 |
3,625 |
6,775 |
Amount Saving in Cost - Deposit/
Return Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers |
$3,500,000 |
$1,250,000 |
$4,750,000 |
* Includes materials managed in the City's waste management system, excluding waste delivered to
City facilities under private contracts and directly from agencies, boards and commissions.
Deposit/return impact based on 85 percent return rate for all beverage containers.
Table 2
Estimated Impact of Deposit/Return (85% Capture) on City's Waste Diversion Rate
For Municipally Collected Wastes
Item |
Alcoholic
Beverage
Containers |
Non-Alcoholic
Beverage
Containers |
Total |
Estimated Amount (Tonnes)
Recycled, City Waste Management
System (Existing) |
11,000 |
10,000 |
21,000 |
Estimated Amount (Tonnes)
Landfilled, City Waste Management
System (Existing) |
7,500 |
17,000 |
24,500 |
Total Other Materials Diverted
(Existing) |
n/a |
n/a |
100,000 |
Total Materials Diverted (Existing) |
n/a |
n/a |
121,000* |
Total Managed, City Waste
Management System (Existing) |
18,500 |
27,000 |
811,000* |
Diversion Rate (Existing) |
59% |
37% |
15%* |
Estimated Amount (Tonnes)
Recycled, City Waste Management
System (Including Deposit/Return) |
16,375 |
24,500 |
40,875 |
Other Materials Diverted with
Deposit/ Return |
n/a |
n/a |
100,000 |
Total Waste Diverted, Including
Waste Addressed by Deposit/Return |
n/a |
n/a |
140,775 |
Total Managed, City Waste
Management System, with Deposit/
Return (Including Materials
Addressed by Deposit/Return) |
n/a |
n/a |
811,000* |
Diversion Rate (Deposit/Return) |
85% |
85% |
17.4%* |
* Excluding diversion of 59,000 tonnes of organic yard waste (approximately 7 percent waste
diversion) and other organic waste diversion. As a consequence of excluding these items, this stated
diversion rate is different from the different diversion rate shown in a separate report to your
Committee regarding the City's overall diversion of waste from landfill. Also excluding privately
collected and privately delivered wastes and wastes from Agencies, Boards and Commissions.
Table 4
Estimated Financial Impacts of Increased Landfill Costs
and Decreased Revenues for the Sale of Fibre
on the City's Waste Management Costs
|
Recycled
Materials |
Landfilled*
Waste |
Totals |
Current Tonnes
|
121,000 |
690,000 |
811,000 |
Current Cost Per Tonne
|
$77.70 |
$86.00 |
$84.76 |
Current Total Cost
|
$9,395,850 |
$59,340,000 |
$68,735,850* |
Cost Per Tonne $50 for Landfill
and Market Prices for Material
Recycling Revenues
|
$117.52 |
$123.00 |
$122.18 |
Landfill Disposal Revenue
Reduction** When Contract
Disposal Equals or Exceeds City
Tipping Fee for Private Waste |
--- |
$27,000,000** |
$27,000,000 |
Future Total Cost
|
$14,220,000 |
$111,870,000 |
$126,090,000 |
Increase of Future Cost from
Current Cost
|
$4,824,150 |
$52,530,000 |
$57,354,150
|
* Excludes costs and revenues from private waste disposal and cost of processing of
compostable materials. The existing net cost of the waste management system including
these items is approximately $77,000,000.00 per year.
** The amount shown represents the current net annual revenue from the acceptance of
commercial wastes at the City's Keele Valley Landfill Site.
Table 5
Estimated CO2 Equivalent Reductions
Resulting from Comprehensive Deposit/Return on
Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers
|
Aluminum |
Ferrous |
HDPE |
PET |
Totals |
Difference in Tonnes of
ECO2* Emissions per
Tonne Virgin Materials
Compared with
Recycled |
5.28 |
0.65 |
0.47 |
0.79 |
n/a |
Increased Material
Recovery from
Deposit/ Return -
Tonnes |
5,300 |
3,000 |
700 |
4,700 |
13,700 |
ECO2* Emission
Reductions from
Deposit/ Return -
Tonnes |
28,000 |
2,000 |
330 |
3,700 |
34,030 |
* ECO2 is the equivalent impact of CO2 emissions for all gasses emitted in virgin material or
recycling processing (including such activities as resource mining and transportation).
The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (March 12,
1998) from the City Clerk:
City Council, at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted, without amendment, the
following Motion:
Moved by: Councillor Mihevc
Seconded by: Councillor Adams
"WHEREAS the Province may be considering the issues of deposit/return in this year's
budget due in April; and
WHEREAS the City has a tremendous interest in this matter and would benefit from a move
from disposable to refillable beverage containers; and
WHEREAS a workshop or day long conference on Earth Day would be an opportunity for
highlighting the issues and advancing the City's interests;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be given
the authority to organize an event on Earth Day, April 22, 1998, or in Earth Week, to
highlight the viability of deposit/return systems; and be requested to submit a report to the
Works and Utilities Committee for its meeting to be held on March 25, 1998, on this
proposal."
The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (March 19, 1998) from
the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:
Purpose:
To undertake an analysis of the actual costs of recycling and landfilling programs provided by the
City of Toronto, and to compare these costs with other published information.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
This report identifies current costs, and will have no impact on the City's operational budget.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Background:
In January 1998, a number of articles were published regarding the City of Toronto's recycling and
landfill costs, and the numbers quoted were questioned by some people regarding their accuracy.
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services made a commitment to report to the
March 25, 1998 meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee with a review of the costs of
recycling and landfill. In order to address the costs associated with the recycling and landfill
programs, it was necessary to create a staff team that had a member from each of the Works
Departments of the previous seven municipalities. This committee has attempted to prepare more
accurate estimates of the total quantity of recyclable materials in the municipally collected waste
stream. This staff team has worked diligently and compiled a huge amount of raw data from which
to identify costs for the existing recycling and landfilling programs. Staff were assisted in the
exercise by an external consultant for KPMG who has advised an appropriate cost accounting for
the program.
Discussion:
It has become very clear that trying to identify a single cost per tonne for recycling and landfilling
is very misleading and can fluctuate considerably when we attempt to define the value of providing
a program according to the net cost of operations. The cost of recycling and landfilling different
materials varies significantly and is impacted by the density of the material, the collection processing
and disposal costs of the different materials and, more importantly, the market value of any material
sold. For example, materials such as newspapers which have a high density and high contract value
under the existing contract have a low recycling net cost, whereas materials such as Polyethylene
Terephthelate (PET) which have low density and low value per cubic metre of material collected and
processed end up having a high recycling net cost per tonne. It has become clear that the average
recycling net cost cannot be used in determining how changes in our recycling program will affect
City costs. The impact of adding or deleting a specific material in the recycling program could be
considerably different from the average recycling net cost, depending on the market value of the
material at any point in time and the density of the material and hence its processing and collection
cost relative to average program and collection costs.
We determined that we would need specific external advice to assist our internal staff committee in
managing its efforts to develop a model which would identify and account for the costs of
conducting our programs on a full-cost basis under generally accepted accounting principles. In
common with many municipalities in Ontario, the new City of Toronto and the seven predecessor
municipalities have structured their financial records in a manner which is designed to support the
preparation of financial statements and accountability to budgeted estimates that are based on
accounting principles prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. While it is
important that these needs be met, systems structured to meet only these requirements often fall short
of being able to generate consistent information about the costs of programs for two reasons:
(1) all the costs relative to the delivery of each program may not be accounted for in the accounts
of the department delivering the program; and
(2) the modified cash basis accounting methodology prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing does not include some costs (e.g., consumption of capital assets and
some employment related costs) on the full accrual basis needed to completely account for
the program delivery cost. A full accrual basis of accounting would be needed in order to
compare City of Toronto costs with, for example, comparable private sector program costs.
To address these shortcomings and ensure a high level of accuracy in the costing of programs, a few
municipalities have developed "activity-based costing" models and systems for certain key
programs. The predecessor municipalities had not yet conformed their accounting practices. This
has provided us with additional challenges. Only the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission of
the former municipalities had moved to an activity-based costing model to obtain true program costs.
Staff are confident that our internal processes in place to determine the tonnages of recycling
materials actually collected and processed give us very accurate information. Other than the
tonnages of material sold to the market, however, the information that was not readily available was
the generation rates of the various materials that are eligible in our recycling programs. The
generation rates are required in order to obtain estimates of the amount of material that is going to
landfill in the waste stream and is not being separated at source by our customers.
It was therefore necessary for us to estimate, or use available generation rates for the various
materials, such as those provided in the "Preliminary Metro 3Rs Strategy Draft Report"
(November 28, 1996), so that we could determine the estimated quantity of each type of eligible
recyclable material that is not collected in our current blue box program. The only way for the City
of Toronto to obtain better estimates of the amount of material that is in the waste stream that really
should be in our recycling program is for us to conduct waste audits on a regular basis. This requires
periodically sampling the waste stream and pulling apart garbage bags to gain an insight as to the
amount of material ending up in our landfills that should have been recycled.
The Audit Function on this Project:
In order to provide the staff team with appropriate advice, we asked the City Auditor to provide us
with the names of three firms capable of assisting the group in our undertaking. It turns out that one
of the names put forward is the current auditor for the former Cities of Scarborough and York who
is, and will be, completing the audits of accounts for the 1997 fiscal year. Accordingly, we invited
Bob Correll of KPMG to assist the team in addressing the costs that should be associated with
recycling and landfill programs. Bob Correll is also actively involved with a number of finance-related committees involving municipal officials, and in April, will become the Chair of a task force
reviewing the issue of accounting for physical assets by local governments for the Public Sector
Accounting and Auditing Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The auditor
will attend the Committee to discuss the advice provided to staff in the development of the costing
model and to answer questions that may be raised with respect to the process.
Amount of Recyclable Material Ending up in Landfill:
We are often asked how much material that is collected in the blue, grey and green box systems of
our recycling program actually does end up in the landfill site. The material known as residue refers
to non-marketable materials that were collected in the City's recycling program yet are ineligible to
be sold to the markets. While some of the material is removed at curbside by our collection staff,
there are many materials that do end up in our processing facility that should not have been in the
system. These ineligible materials that are residual to the process are then transported to the landfill
site for disposal. Table 1 below shows the tonnes of residual material that were collected in the
City's recycling program in 1997, but due to their ineligibility for our markets, had to be taken to
landfill.
Table 1
Amounts of Recyclable Materials collected in Blue, Grey and Green Box Program
Actually Recovered and Delivered to Landfill - 1997
Material |
% |
Material Recovered
(Tonnes) |
Tonnes of Residue
Landfilled |
Total
Materials
Collected
(Tonnes)
|
Paper Fibre |
72
|
84,928 |
2,933 |
87,861 |
Container
Materials |
28 |
31,409 |
2,514 |
33,923 |
Totals
|
100 |
116,337 |
5,447 |
121,784 |
Costs of the Recycling and Landfilling Programs:
When reviewing costs, it is important to bear in mind the difference between our gross expenditure
for the program and the net cost which takes into account the current value received for
marketable products. As indicated earlier in the report, the market value for recyclable material can
fluctuate considerably for some materials, such as aluminum, fibre and plastics. For example, the
current price enjoyed by the City for fibre material is locked in at a price considerably above the
current market value. When this contract is retendered, there may be significant differences in the
revenue received. It is difficult therefore to continue to compare the net costs of our system, and in
this report we have attempted to start with gross expenditures and then deduct revenue so that in
future we can continue to compare gross expenditures for our programs.
When reviewing both the gross and net costs outlined in this report, it is important that one should
not assume that by eliminating any given class of material from collection, the collection costs can
be reduced by the specific cost that we have allocated for that class of material. It will still be
necessary to collect all of the other materials and a significant component of collection costs relates
to the activity of travelling between individual collection points, as well as travelling to and from
the yards, transfer stations and material recovery facilities. As identified in our report on
deposit/return, significant volumes of recyclable materials have to be excluded from collection in
order to reach a threshold which will result in significant cost savings.
It is also necessary to take into account the volume taken up by any element contained in our
recycling program, not just the weight component, when considering the impact of adding or
deleting materials from eligibility in our program. As can be seen from the revenue from sale of
materials, shown in Table 3, aluminum cans are very light yet contributed significantly to our total
revenue in 1997. Conversely, materials such as PET contributed a relatively small amount to the
total revenue. Revenues from paper fibre amounted to 67 percent of total recycling revenues
received in 1997.
Any average cost used, or net cost of our recycling program is merely an average cost of all of the
materials taken at one point in time based on the current composition in our system and the current
revenue rates for the marketable materials.
Table 2 below shows the 1997 costs of recycling and landfilling compared with the cost for recycling
and landfilling published earlier this year. While we do have the breakdown of material of actual
tonnages of material collected, processing and sold, we do not have reasonable estimates of the
tonnage of each eligible material that goes in the waste stream because it is not separated at source
by our customers. We have therefore grouped the materials picked up in our blue box and our grey
and green boxes to compare so that the costs of fibre materials and container materials are separated,
but the costs of individual container materials are not separated. In effect we have a basket of
different materials and to allocate collection, processing and disposal cost per individual material
is inappropriate. Any such cost would definitely not represent the incremental cost of deleting this
particular material. Table 2 shows that the average net cost of fibre recycling is much lower than
the average net cost of container recycling. This is due to the higher density of fibre and its lower
collection cost per tonne, and the higher revenue received from fibre as shown below. The costs of
recycling and landfilling different types of materials are shown in more detail in Table 4. Landfill
costs are shown in Tables 2 and 4 as a uniform cost per tonne. In fact, different materials have
different densities in landfill. However, little empirical data is available regarding landfill densities,
and no variation in unit cost is shown in the analysis. More work is required to understand the cost
of landfilling individual types of recyclable materials.
Table 2
Comparison of Previously Published Recycling and Landfill Costs
and Costs Shown in this Report
|
January 27, 1998 Data
Cost/Tonne Collected |
Work Group Data
Cost/Tonne Based on 1997
Actual Costs/Tonne
Marketed |
Fibre Materials Collection
Cost |
n/a |
$100.00 |
Fibre Materials Revenue |
n/a |
$95.45 |
Fibre Materials Net Cost |
n/a |
$4.55 |
Container Materials Average
Collection Cost |
n/a |
$382.35 |
Container Materials Average
Revenue |
n/a |
$117.64 |
Container Materials Average
Net Cost |
n/a |
$264.71 |
Combined Blue, Grey and
Green Box Collection,
Transfer and Processing
Gross Average Cost Per
Tonne |
$159.00 |
$179.33 |
Combined Blue, Grey and
Green Box Materials
Average Revenue Per Tonne |
$100.00 |
$101.63 |
Combined Blue, Grey and
Green Box Average Net Cost |
$59.00 |
$77.70 |
Waste Disposal Collection
Cost |
$48.00 |
$55.07 |
Waste Disposal Transfer
Cost |
$22.00 |
$17.51 |
Waste Disposal Landfill Cost |
$16.70*** |
$13.42** |
Total Cost Per Tonne for All
Municipally Collected
Garbage and Recyclable
Materials |
$86.70 |
$86.00 |
* Residue disposal and Metro administrative costs.
** Excludes cost of waste haul to USA (1997 costs).
*** Includes cost of haul to and disposal of waste in the USA.
Revenue from Sale of Materials:
Table 3 below shows the total revenue received for each eligible recyclable material for the City of
Toronto in 1997. It is important to note that the revenue for the recyclable materials can vary
considerably from year to year, and in the case of aluminum the City of Toronto obtains quotations
every two weeks due to the volatility of the market price for aluminum.
Table 3
Revenue Received for Recyclable Materials - 1997
Material |
Total Revenue (1997) |
Paper Fibre |
$8,414,917 |
Aluminum Cans |
$2,352,018 |
Steel Cans |
$585,218 |
HDPE |
$504,360 |
Glass Bottles and Jars |
$408,473 |
PET |
$237,110 |
Total |
$12,502,096 |
Table 4, attached, shows the existing relative costs of recycling and landfilling based on current
prices received by the City, which averages a gross cost of $101.63 per tonne for recycling before
revenues, $77.70 per tonne after revenues for recycling and $86.00 per tonne for landfill. As can be
seen from Table 4, while the average cost of recycling is $77.70 per tonne after revenues, the
average cost of fibre recycling is $100.00 per tonne before revenues, $4.55 per tonne after revenues,
whereas the average cost of container recycling is $382.35 per tonne before revenues and $264.71
per tonne after revenues. The gross cost of recycling container materials is much higher than the
gross cost of recycling fibre materials because the lower density container materials are more
expensive to collect and process per tonne of material. There are wide variations in the costs of
recycling containers of different material composition. Only aluminum containers result in a net
revenue for recycling, while all other containers result in net costs, some of which are very
substantial.
Estimates of Quantities of Material in the Recycling and Waste Streams:
The performance of Toronto's existing recycling program can best be understood by considering the
amount of material actually collected in the blue, grey and green box systems, and estimating the
amounts of the same material that are not separated out by our customers and are therefore collected
as garbage. Based on the City's data management system, we have fairly accurate tonnages of
material that is collected, processed, and sold to markets as a result of weighing all of the material
both entering and leaving our system. However, the total quantity of the same types of materials
contained in the garbage is an estimate based on waste surveys and other information. Our estimates
are based in part on analysis carried out and reported in the Resource Integration Systems Inc. (RIS)
study conducted for the Metro Works Department as part of the preliminary Metro 3Rs Strategy.
It is easier for us to accurately estimate the larger volumes of materials such as paper and glass than
it is the smaller volumes of items such as aluminum cans. However, the accurate estimation of high
value materials such as aluminum is important to us in considering future waste management
strategies to recover such materials from the waste stream. The quantities of materials described in
this report do not include privately collected recyclable material and garbage. All of the figures are
based on our existing programs and the impact of a deposit/return system is discussed in a separate
report to the Committee.
Summary:
When considering the previously published figures of average recycling and landfill costs mentioned
above, it should be noted that the six previous Area Municipalities used different methodologies
when reporting their program costs. The differences between these methodologies have been
addressed, but future work in bringing all accounting systems to the same basis will result in further
refinements of stated unit costs. The previously published costs were also based on 1998 projections
and collection volumes for recyclable materials, whereas the revised costs were based on 1997 actual
costs and marketed volume of recyclable materials. Future projected changes in recycling and
landfill costs are addressed in our separate report dated March 18, 1998, entitled "The Issues
Associated with a Deposit/Return System for Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers."
We found it necessary to engage the services of our external auditor in order to standardize the
elements that should be reported as part of cost allocation, and it was through this process that we
determined the difference in the original reporting values. Based on the advice given by the auditor,
we believe that these figures more accurately represent the costs of our two programs based on 1997
figures. Even though the 1997 expenditures have not been audited, we believe these numbers more
accurately reflect the costs of the programs.
As outlined in our report on deposit/return implementation and impacts, there are large amounts of
recyclable materials ending up in our landfill due to the fact they are not being separated at source
by residents and businesses. The cost of managing and landfilling these materials that should ideally
be separated out is considerable, and if through mechanisms such as deposit/return we can extract
these materials, then the performance of our waste management system will improve, costs will
decrease, and there will be less material going to our landfill site.
Environmental Benefits of Recycling Programs:
The analysis shown in this report indicates that overall net recycling costs are similar to landfill
costs. However, these net recycling costs are dependent on fluctuating material prices and the cost
of recycling individual materials varies significantly. Due to the large quantity of paper waste in the
recycling and garbage waste streams, the price of paper is the most sensitive factor in determining
net recycling cost.
This conclusion does not negate the validity of the blue box program. There are significant
environmental benefits from recycling, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced
resource use, reduced consumption of landfill space and reduced leachate emissions. The analysis
highlights the fact that some individual recycling activities are more expensive than others, and other
techniques of waste management such as reduction and reuse may result in improved environmental
results, possibly at lower overall costs. A separate report to your Committee addresses this issue,
with respect to the concept of deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers.
The analysis also suggests that in considering future waste management strategies for the City, other
concepts such as "two stream" collection/processing and centralized composting and mixed waste
processing should be addressed in detail, because, even if deposit/return is instituted for alcoholic
and non-alcoholic beverage containers, large amounts of eligible recyclable materials (other
containers and fibre) will remain in the recycling and garbage stream. These other methods have the
potential, possibly in tandem with the blue box program, to capture large amounts of these materials
and improve the environmental performance of the City's waste management system.
This report, together with the report regarding deposit/return, also highlights the issue of needed
material recovery facility (MRF) capacity. Decisions regarding expansion of MRF capacity should
have regard for potential changes in container processing requirements as a result of institution of
deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers and/or mixed waste processing.
Conclusions:
The detailed analysis described in this report has resulted in reassessment of average recycling costs,
after revenues from the sale of materials, from $59.00 per tonne to $77.70 per tone. However, the
analysis has shown that market prices for materials are a very significant factor in net recycling
costs, and that the cost of container recycling (blue box materials) is significantly higher than fibre
recycling costs, particularly as a result of current high revenues received for fibre materials.
Assessments of future changes to the City's waste management system must include detailed
analysis of the impacts of changes in collection on processing costs and revenues for the individual
materials affected by the changes so that accurate predictions of the expected cost impacts of those
changes and the impacts of future market prices can be made. It is also necessary to carry out more
analysis to understand the landfill costs for different types of materials. This will assist in gaining
a better understanding of the true costs of landfill and a better understanding of the relative costs of
recycling and landfill for individual materials.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
John Warren, Director of Operations and Sanitation
Toronto Community Council Area
Phone: (416) 392-1846; Fax: (416) 392-0396
E-Mail: "jwarren2@city.toronto.on.ca"
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before
it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:
(i) (March 16, 1998) from the City Solicitor submitting a confidential report respecting
implementation of a deposit/return system for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage
containers;
(ii) (January 27, 1998) from Mr. John Jackson, Coordinator, Citizens' Network on Waste
Management, requesting the opportunity to appear before the Committee regarding
deposit/return systems and refillables as components of a new materials management
strategy for the City of Toronto; and forwarding a copy of a report entitled "A Strategy to
Promote Refillables & Reuse in Ontario", and a communication to the Minister of
Environment and Energy with respect thereto;
(iii) (January 27, 1998) from the Clerk-Treasurer, Township of Hagarty & Richards, advising that
the Council for the Township of Hagarty and Richards is requesting endorsement of a
resolution dated January 20, 1998, wherein it is resolved that the manufacturers of products
placed in containers be required to offer a deposit and refund system for the return of these
containers to the place of purchase once empty;
(iv) (March 14, 1998) from Mr. Jeffrey F. Stuart, New York City, forwarding an article from the
March 10, 1998 edition of The New York Times respecting the issue of refillable beverage
packaging; and
(v) (March 24, 1998) from Mr. Joseph P. Hruska, Vice President, Municipal Development,
Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR), requesting that if the report dated March 18,
1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management is not received for
information, the Committee defer consideration of this report until its next meeting.
The following persons appeared before the Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. John Jackson, Coordinator, Citizens' Network on Waste Management;
- Mr. Geoff Rathborne, Vice-President, Market and Technical Development,
CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling; and
- Mr. Anthony G. van Heyningen, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Canadian Soft Drink
Association.
(A copy of Figures 1 and 2 referred to in the foregoing report dated March 18, 1998, has been
forwarded to all Members of Council with the supplementary agenda for the Works and Utilities
Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on April 16, 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing
Clause, the following report (April 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of March 25, 1998, received a confidential report
from the City Solicitor respecting implementation of a deposit/return system for alcoholic and
non-alcoholic beverage containers sold in the new City of Toronto. The report was submitted
further to the direction of Council in adopting, at its meeting of February 4 5, and 6 1998, among
other recommendations, the recommendation of the Works and Utilities Committee to adopt the
recommendations contained in Clause No. 4 of Report No. 12 of Metro's Environment and Public
Space Committee, adopted as amended by Metro Council. One of those recommendations was:
"(2) that the Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works, report on
any legal remedies that may be used to help establish a deposit/return system
for wine and spirit beverage containers sold in the new City of Toronto;"
The Committee requested that a public report be submitted directly to Council for its meeting on
April 16, 1998.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that, should City Council wish to proceed with the implementation of a
deposit/return system for beverage containers, the Province be requested to enact legislation
granting the City the power to do so.
Comments:
(a) Waste Management Legislative Framework:
The only explicit legislative authority to authorize the implementation of a deposit/return system
arises pursuant to the prohibition contained in subsection 88(1) of the Environmental Protection Act
("the EPA"). That subsection states:
"No person shall use, offer for sale or sell any packaging, container or disposable
product or any material for use in packaging, containers or disposable products
contrary to this Act or the regulations."
Subsection 176(7) of the EPA provides statutory authority for extensive Provincial regulations
relating to the sale of containers, including, in part:
(i) defining "returnable" containers;
(ii) regulating the amount, terms and conditions of deposit;
(iii) regulating the stocking, display, sale, advertising and offering for sale of any container
(including only in a class of container that may be prescribed);
(iv) requiring the placement of a mark on containers respecting any payment to be made for their
return;
(v) requiring and regulating the payment of refunds; and
(vi) requiring and regulating the acceptance and collection of any container.
Therefore the authority to implement a deposit/return system is expressly provided for by a
regulatory scheme under the provisions of the EPA.
There are no similar legislative provisions providing the City with the authority to pass a by-law
requiring a deposit/return system for beverage containers within Toronto. The City's waste
management powers flow from section 208.2 of the Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act") which states as follows:
"A local municipality may pass by-laws to establish, maintain and operate a waste
management system."
In turn a "waste management system" is defined as facilities and services owned, operated or
controlled by a municipality for the management of waste. The City's waste management powers
are restricted therefore to the establishment of its own system and not to the regulation of waste
management generally. For greater certainty, section 208.6(3) of the Act states that a by-law of
a local municipality applies only to a waste management system of the local municipality.
Given that the City does not currently have the express power or necessarily incidental powers to
regulate waste management in order to compel a deposit/return system, the discussion that follows
focuses on two subject areas relating to municipal powers:
- the legislative changes contemplated by enactment of a new Municipal Act, the draft of
which is currently the subject of public consultation, and
- other powers contained in the Act that may indirectly compel implementation.
(b) The New Draft Municipal Act:
The new Draft Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft Act") has been released for
public consultation. If enacted in its current form, it would confer on municipalities the capacity,
rights and powers of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under any Act.
Municipalities would also have governmental powers within broad spheres of jurisdiction, including
"Health, safety, protection and well-being of people and the protection of property" and "Waste
management". The governmental power would include the ability to prohibit as well as regulate
and to provide for a system of licences and approvals. There are, however, statutory restrictions
surrounding the mandates that are granted. The statutory restrictions are either general, specific
or residual.
General: A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with a provincial or federal
Act, a regulation or enactment (e.g., approval or permit) made under such an Act.
If a matter is subject to provincial regulation, a by-law (including licensing
conditions) is without effect to the extent that it prohibits or regulates the matter in
substantially the same way or in a more restrictive way than the provincial
regulation.
Specific: In the "waste management" sphere of jurisdiction, a municipality does not have
power to pass by-laws regulating or prohibiting with respect to systems owned by or
operated by or on behalf of a person other than the municipality.
Residual: The Province may by regulation restrict the power of municipalities under the
Municipal Act or any other Act.
In short, the proposed Draft Act would not broaden the ability of a municipality to implement a
deposit/return system and in fact, by addressing "waste management" specifically to state that a
municipality cannot regulate systems owned or operated by others, may be considered more
restrictive in terms of a municipality being able to implement such a system.
(c) Other Powers Indirectly Compelling Implementation of a Deposit/Return System:
Examples of indirect approaches to implementation based on other powers besides the waste
management power include:
(i) the short-lived enactment last year by the City of North York of a by-law enacted pursuant
to the provisions of section 220.1 of the Act to compel service fees from vendors of alcoholic
beverage containers (with exemptions for deposit/return systems), and
(ii) the argument that has been made by deputants that the City has the legal authority to
establish a scheme for deposit/return by using its general licensing powers (Part XVII.1 of
the Act).
Before embarking on any specific discussions of such indirect approaches, however, the existence
of a general limitation on the authority of Council to enact by-laws should be pointed out. This
limitation or restriction can be expressed as:
(i) the inability of municipalities to enact by-laws that conflict with provincial legislation, and
(ii) the courts' wariness of colourable attempts by governments to legislate indirectly when
direct powers to legislate have been prohibited.
Accordingly, while the consideration of specific approaches are discussed below, any by-law based
on such approaches would likely be found invalid for the following reasons:
(i) Any such by-law would likely be viewed by the courts as a colourable attempt to regulate in
the area of waste management beyond the City's current powers, and
(ii) It is likely that any such by-law, even if otherwise found to be within the power conferred on
the municipality, would be considered to be invalid as being in conflict with provincial
legislation. In this respect, where a by-law enacted pursuant to a general statutory
delegation of authority deals with subject matter which is dealt with in a comprehensive way
in a provincial statute, courts have held such by-laws to be ultra vires the municipality. For
example, in the case of Superior Propane v. York (City), (1995) 23 O.R. (3d) 161, the Court
of Appeal for Ontario considered a by-law of the City of York passed under the general
authority delegated to the City by the Planning Act. This by-law purported to regulate the
storage and distribution of propane in the municipality. The Court declared the by-law ultra
vires the municipality on the basis that "the Energy Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 139, and the
regulation enacted under it contain a comprehensive scheme to regulate propane dispensing,
installation, handling and storage and that these matters are not subject to legislative
authority by municipalities."
Subject to the above caveat and the conclusion that arises from it, as stated above, there are four
approaches, discussed below, that have been considered in the preparation of this report in relation
to the potential to implement a deposit return by-law. The approaches based on use of service fees
and licensing have been the subject of public commentary and deputations. The approaches are as
follows:
(1) deposit/return as an exemption ancillary to the imposition of service fees under section 220.1
of the Act;
(2) deposit/return as an exemption ancillary to the imposition of licensing fees or as a condition
of licensing pursuant to section 257.2 of the Act;
(3) deposit/return as an exemption ancillary to the imposition of waste management fees or as
an "incentive" authorized pursuant to the powers contained in section 208.5 (waste
management powers) of the Act; and
(4) the use of the municipal residual power, i.e., the health safety and welfare section of the Act;
(1) Deposit/Return as an Exemption Ancillary to Service Fees:
This option has been foreclosed. The former City of North York enacted a by-law in September of
1997 which provided for the imposition of service fees on vendors of alcoholic beverages. The
service fees imposed were based on the cost recovery from the major wineries, including the LCBO,
of the municipal waste management of alcoholic beverage containers. The by-law would have
allowed an exemption from the payment of service fees based on implementation of a deposit/return
system.
The Province quickly filed Ontario Regulation 352/97 amending Ontario Regulation 26/96 in
relation to the fees and charges permitted under the general provision of section 220.1 of the Act.
By that Regulation, a municipality cannot impose fees or charges under section 220.1 which relate
to the management (including collection, disposal, reuse and recycling) of waste except when a
person who directly or by means of an agent discards the waste at the municipal facility or through
the municipal service. The relevant part of the regulation is attached as an appendix to this report.
At the present time, an argument is being made that this Regulation only addresses "waste" and not
the "recycling" of material. This argument would appear to be contrary to the explicit language
of the Regulation which indicates that management includes recycling.
In addition, the argument fails to recognize that the powers and authorities of municipalities with
respect to recycling emanate from the power granted under section 208.2 of the Act to establish and
maintain a waste management system. Under section 208.2 of the Act, a waste management system
is defined to include the processing and recycling of waste. Therefore, it is my opinion that the
intent and subject matter of the Regulation would appear to be clear.
The current provisions in the Act on service fees would be carried over to the Draft Act.
(2) Deposit/Return as an Exemption ancillary to Licensing Fees or as a Condition of Licensing:
Section 257.2 of the Act was enacted by Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 and
provides for the general licensing powers of municipalities. By-laws may be passed for licensing,
regulating and governing any business carried on within the City. "Business" does not include a
manufacturing activity or an industry except to the extent that it sells its products or raw material
by retail; nor does it include the selling of goods by wholesale. Classes of businesses may be defined
with separate licensing and regulation of each class.
An argument has been made that the section provides broad licensing powers to municipalities such
that a licensing by-law could be framed similar to the North York by-law discussed above. Licensing
fees, by this argument, could be imposed coupled with the power to exempt any business or person
establishing a deposit/return system from all or any part of the licensing by-law. A class, the
argument goes, could constitute the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the "LCBO").
The current section 257.2, however, is, at the least, ambiguous about the extent to which licensing
fees may be used to raise monies. Subsection 257.2(3) states as follows:
"In setting the amount of fees to be charged for a licence, the council shall take into
account the costs of administering and enforcing the by-laws of the municipality
licensing businesses."
In the one case to date referring to section 257.2 of the Act (Ontario Private Campground
Association v. Harvey (Township)), the Court referred to the express limitation of costs imposed
by the subsection.
It should be noted that the Draft Act would appear to clarify the intent of the subsection. By
subsection 143(7) of the Draft Act, a municipality cannot impose a licensing fee which exceeds the
cost of administering and enforcing the by-law. Subsection 143(7) states as follows:
"The total amount of fees to be charged for licensing a class of business shall not
exceed the costs of administering and enforcing the by-law or portion of the by-law
of the municipality licensing that class of business."
Even assuming the breadth of the licensing powers as argued (in fact, the courts will apply a strict
construction in interpreting a licensing by-law based on the proposition that such by-laws interfere
with the common law rights of the person obliged to secure a licence to carry on a business in the
municipality), the courts, in any event, will examine the legitimacy of the proposed licensing scheme
and, in particular, the "business" that is being licensed. In respect of the imposition of fees
specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently indicated that a central question is whether
"...the levy or tax [is] merely ancillary, or adhesive, to the licensing scheme of regulating or
prohibiting a trade, or is it essentially a fiscal imposition, or taxation, under a form of disguise or
a colourable concept?" It is likely that a court would find that the imposition of the licensing fees
in question or of a condition simply to implement a deposit/return system is a colourable attempt
either to recover service fees or engage in an area of waste management regulation not otherwise
permitted and not part of a valid business regulatory scheme within the jurisdiction of the
municipality.
It should also be pointed out that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may make regulations under the
provisions of the Act exempting any business or class of business from all or any part of a business
licensing by-law of a municipality and imposing limitations on the exercise of the licensing power.
This has some importance given the willingness shown to date by the Province to pass regulations
limiting the imposition of service fees.
This regulation making power of the Minister under the licensing section of the Act has in fact been
exercised. Regulation 379/97 was filed in October, 1997. It states that there is no power in a
municipality "to impose any condition with respect to the sale or service of liquor, as defined in the
Liquor License Act, as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence issued
by the municipality". Section 143 of the Draft Act also repeats this prohibition. It may be argued
that any condition pertaining to deposit/return in respect of vendors of alcoholic beverage
containers affects the sale of liquor under the regulation.
In respect of the suggested approach to require vendors of alcoholic beverage containers to obtain
a licence and, in particular, the LCBO, it is likely that such a municipal licensing by-law would be
held invalid. Aside from any arguments that the LCBO may be a Crown agent and, as such, not
bound by municipal regulation, a court would likely find that there was conflict with the provincial
legislation governing alcoholic beverages and the LCBO and that the City's licensing and
regulatory scheme could not be considered legitimate in the face of an existing provincial
governance scheme. Under the Liquor Control Act, the Province has extensive existing regulatory
jurisdiction over the LCBO and the major vendors of alcoholic beverages. Section 8 sets out the
power that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has to make regulations. It states that:
"8. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
(a) governing the purchase, distribution and sale of liquor;
(b) governing the keeping, storage or transportation of liquor;
(c) governing the operations of government stores or classes of
government stores;
(d) governing the product and pricing of liquor sold in government stores
or classes of government stores;
(e) governing the issuance of authorizations for government stores by the
Liquor Control Board;
(f) prescribing the conditions that apply to authorizations for
government stores or to authorizations for classes of government
stores;
(g) prescribing standards for liquor manufactured, purchased,
distributed or sold in Ontario;
(h) requiring the payment of fees;
(i) requiring manufacturers, wineries that manufacture Ontario wine,
persons operating government stores and persons importing liquor
to furnish the Board with such returns and information respecting the
manufacture, purchase, distribution or sale of liquor as is prescribed;
(j) governing the purchase of liquor under a permit issued by the Liquor
License Board of Ontario and requiring the payment of such fees on
such purchases and prescribing the amounts thereof;
(k) exempting any person, product or class of person or product from
any provision of this Act or the regulations;
(2) A regulation may be general or particular in its application.
(3) Any provision of a regulation may be subject to such conditions,
qualifications or requirements as are specified in the regulation."
Under the Draft Act there is express provision in relation to conflict between provincial and
municipal regulations. By proposed subsection 17(3) of the Draft Act, the conditions of licensing
cannot prohibit or regulate a matter dealt with by provincial regulation in substantially the same
way or in a more restrictive way.
(3) Deposit/Return as an Exemption Ancillary to the Imposition of Waste Management Fees and
as an Incentive:
An argument is being made that section 208.6 of the Act provides authority to a municipal council
to pass by-laws establishing fees for the use of any part of its waste management system, that it
provides broad powers to establish fees which vary on any basis that council considers appropriate
and provides for an exemption for any person from such fees. The argument goes on to indicate that
the section also includes the ability to establish incentives, including tax credits and rebates, to
encourage the reduction and reuse or recycling of waste. The argument is put forward that the use
of the word "incentive" refers to a "public policy purpose" which, coupled with the fees power,
would allow the enactment of a by-law very similar to the North York service fee by-law without the
ability of the Minister to pass a Regulation prohibiting such fees.
However,
(i) by subsection 208.6(3) of the Act, a by-law to establish, maintain and operate a waste
management system applies only to the waste management system of the local municipality.
Therefore, a by-law cannot purport to regulate facilities or systems outside the collection
system of the local municipality;
(ii) a court would likely see this as an indirect attempt to circumvent the express prohibition in
the regulation, referred to above, relating to waste management service fees made under
section 220.1 of the Act. This is particularly the case as the press release accompanying the
service fee regulation stated that the LCBO was not a user of the blue box system. The press
release stated, in part:
"The Municipal Act gives municipalities powers to charge for the use of municipal services,
including waste management services. A charge against vendors or manufacturers is not
a user fee unless the vendor or manufacturer is the one disposing of the waste material. The
regulation clarifies this."; and
(iii) the argument neglects the fact that the usual and reasonable definition of an "incentive" is
something which in its nature stimulates or encourages, such as a payment or concession
to stimulate greater productivity by workers. This common definition appears to be
reinforced by the inclusive reference in the clause to tax credits and rebates. Such a
definition would appear to be contrary to the "stick" of direct regulation with no "carrot"
as a reward.
It should also be noted that under the provisions of the Draft Act, the Province is proposing to do
away with any independent fee authority as set out in section 208.6 of the Act other than the general
fees section replacing section 220.1 (service fees) of the Act.
The Draft Act specifically would provide by its proposed section 20 that, with regard to the waste
management sphere of jurisdiction, a municipality will not have the power to pass by-laws
regulating or prohibiting systems and facilities owned by or operated by or on behalf of a person
other than the municipality. This would therefore preclude any extension of the breadth of the
"incentive" argument.
(4) Use of Health Safety and Welfare By-law Powers:
The use of section 102 of the Act was considered. It provides as follows:
"Every council may pass such by-laws and make such regulations for the health,
safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality in matters not
specifically provided for by this Act and for governing the conduct of its members as
may be deemed expedient and are not contrary to law."
Aside from the fact that the requirement for a deposit/return system does not deal with nuisance or
health and safety matters, this general residual section would not be applicable in the face of express
provincial legislation dealing with the subject matter in the EPA.
Under the proposed provisions of the Draft Act, the power now set out in section 102 of the Act is
carried over to a sphere of jurisdiction entitled "Health, safety, protection and well-being of people
and the protection of property". Specifically the Draft Act proposes that a municipality may pass
by-laws respecting matters that, in the opinion of council, affect or could affect the health, safety,
protection and well-being of people or the protection of property. The opinion of council would not
be open to review by any court.
The qualification to this, however, is that the opinion must be arrived at in good faith. It would be
open to a court to review any deposit/return system established on the basis of this power as an
argument would likely be made that this was a colourable attempt to circumvent the specific
prohibition concerning the sphere of "waste management" and that the basis of the regulation is
economic and, in any event, not related to health and safety. The provisions concerning conflict in
the Draft Act also apply to any by-law under this authority.
Conclusions:
The City currently has no legislative authority, either direct or indirect, to compel the
implementation of a deposit/return system for beverage containers. A review of the Draft Act
indicates that the City would not be receiving any powers that would change the present situation.
Should City Council wish to proceed with the implementation of a deposit/return system for
beverage containers, the Province would have to enact legislation granting the City the power to
do so.
Contact Name:
J. Anderson, Senior Solicitor, 392-8059.
Ontario Regulation 352/97 Prohibiting Service Fees
For Waste Management
Ontario Regulation 26/96 is amended by adding the following sections:
5. (1) A municipality or local board does not have the power to impose fees or charges on
a person under section 220.1 of the Act which relate to the management (including collection,
disposal, reuse and recycling) of waste except on a person who, directly or by means of an agent,
discards the waste,
(a) through a waste collection service or at a waste management facility of the
municipality or local board, as the case may be: or
(b) through a waste collection service or at a waste management facility of any other
municipality or local board to which the municipality or local board imposing the
fees or charges pays costs related to the management of waste.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a municipality from imposing fees or charges on a
person which relate to the clean up or collection of litter or other waste which has been illegally
disposed of on any land.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report
(undated) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York - Humber:
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor
be requested to submit to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee a by-law requiring
that all beverages sold in the City of Toronto be subject to a deposit/return system.
Background:
Council has before it the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee respecting a
strategy for implementing a deposit/return system for beverage containers sold in the City of
Toronto. The City solicitor has been asked to present a proposal for enabling legislation to permit
deposit/return in the City of Toronto, and to submit a report directly to Council on legal remedies
for the implementation of a deposit/return system.
The previous Metro Council has been requesting that a by-law be brought forward that would
require that all beverages sold in the City be subject to a deposit/return system since October 9,
1996. Council at that time approved that:
"The Commissioner of Works be requested to submit a report to the Environment
and Public Space Committee on ways in which a deposit return system could be
implemented within Metropolitan Toronto; and that enabling legislation be sought
in that regard."
Since then we have had one delay after another and the City has continued to front the costs
associated with the recycling and landfilling of beverage containers, at an annual cost of at least
$4.75 million.
Rather than dwell on the extent of municipal jurisdiction, or whether a by-law would be successful,
we should be putting forward the most defensible by-law possible and taking our chances in the
courts.
It has always been my position that a deposit/return system should be implemented across the
Province, by the Provincial Government. Its reluctance to act forces municipalities to take
whatever steps are necessary to insure that the economically and environmentally superior option
is implemented within our own jurisdiction. At the same time, we should be working with other
municipalities in the GTA to insure that a uniform by-law is put in place in as many jurisdictions
as possible.
I would remind my colleagues that it was not too long ago that we were warned that we had no legal
authority to regulate lap dancing. Notwithstanding, we implemented a by-law which was followed
by many other municipalities and that ultimately resulted in lap dancing being banned throughout
much of the greater GTA.
We must be equally proactive on this issue in order to be successful and I ask for your support at
Council to have a draft by-law presented to the Works and Utilities Committee at the earliest
possible opportunity.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
communication (April 22, 1998) from the City Clerk:
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received the
attached report dated April 16, 1998, from the City Solicitor and the attached communication dated
April 20, 1998, from Mr. Robert G. Power, Outerbridge, Miller, Sefton, Willms & Shier, Barristers
and Solicitors, respecting the matter of a deposit/return system for beverage containers; and having
directed that the aforementioned report and communication be referred to Council for consideration
with this matter at its special meeting to be held on April 28, 1998 (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A
of The Works and Utilities Committee).
Background:
The Works and Utilities Committee on April 22, 1998, had before it a report (April 16, 1998) from
the City Solicitor respecting a deposit/return system for beverage containers and measures that can
be undertaken with respect to licensing at the retail or distribution level, as requested by the
Committee at its meeting on March 25, 1998; and recommending that the report be received for
information.
The Committee also had before it a communication (April 20, 1998) from Mr. Robert G. Power,
Outerbridge, Miller, Sefton, Willms & Shier, Barristers and Solicitors, in response to the
Committee's invitation to appear before the Committee at its meeting on April 22, 1998, advising
that he would not be available to attend the meeting due to a prior out-of-town commitment; and
providing arguments for the City of Toronto to pursue a deposit/refund system within its jurisdiction,
despite any regulatory restrictions that the City may currently face.
Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber, appeared before the Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter.)
(Report dated April 16, 1998, addressed to the
Works and Utilities Committee from the City Solicitor)
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to report, as requested by the Committee at its meeting held on
March 25, 1998, on measures that can be undertaken with respect to licensing at the retail or
distribution level.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no funding implications as a result of this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting on March 25, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee had before it an in-camera
report from the City Solicitor with respect to legal remedies for the implementation of a
deposit/return system. The Committee requested that a report be submitted to the Committee, at its
meeting on April 22, 1998, on measures that can be undertaken with respect to licensing at the retail
or distribution level.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Under subsection 257.2(1) of the Municipal Act (the "Act"), the council of a local municipality may
pass by-laws for licensing, regulating and governing any business carried on within the
municipality. A business may be licensed even though the business is carried on from a location
outside the municipality so long as any part of the business is carried on within the municipality.
By subsection 257.1(1) of the Act, a "business" is defined in broad terms. There are, however, a
number of exceptions to what may be licensed as a business. A business does not include the
following:
(a) a manufacturing activity or an industry, except to the extent that it sells its products or raw
material by retail;
(b) the selling of goods by wholesale; or,
(c) the generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal or transportation
of natural resources.
"Wholesale" is not a defined term in the licensing provisions of the Act. The ordinary meaning
would therefore apply. Generally speaking, wholesale can be considered the sale of goods or
commodities for resale by retailers as opposed to a sale to the ultimate consumer.
In the context of the prior report from the City Solicitor commenting on the implementation of a
deposit/return system, a store selling beverages directly to the public would be a business within the
meaning of the business licensing provisions of the Act. A distributor of beverages, whether that
distributor be the manufacturer itself or a bottling company, selling beverages in containers to a
major retail chain such as Loblaws, would not be considered a business as it would be selling goods
by wholesale.
Typically, the legislation in provinces which have deposit/return systems incorporate distributors
in the definitions of those upon whom deposit and refund obligations are imposed, as provisions for
payment by distributors and the marking of beverage containers (as being subject to deposit) are
considered essential elements of the system. For example, in the new British Columbia "Bottle
Bill", a definition of "brand owner" is provided for and includes the manufacturer of a beverage,
an importer of a beverage and the person who distributes a beverage. The same all inclusive
definition is provided for in the definition of "manufacturer" in the relevant Alberta regulation.
Contact Name:
J. Anderson, Senior Solicitor, 392-8059.)
(A copy of the communication (April 20, 1998) from Mr. Robert G. Power, Outerbridge, Miller,
Sefton, Willms & Shier, Barristers and Solicitors, referred to in the foregoing communication dated
April 22, 1998, from the City Clerk, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
communication (April 15, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights:
Enclosed please find the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's (AMO's) position regarding the
Recycling Council of Ontario's (RCO's) Roles and Responsibilities draft consultation paper. The
Task Force members will be meeting with Minister Norm Sterling and will emphasize the need for
financial support for the blue box. Wendy Stewart from Ottawa Carleton is chairing the Task Force.)
(A copy of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Policy Report (March, 1998) entitled
"AMO's Response to the Recycling Council of Ontario's Recycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft
Consultation Paper", referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
communication (April 27, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights:
The Minister of the Environment, Norm Sterling, requested the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO)
to "recommend short and long-term options to address product stewardship issues, particularly as
they relate to funding initiatives for curb side recycling programs".
The RCO has completed its report which will be submitted to the Minister this week.
For your information, I am sending you a copy of the summary of possible Provincial initiatives,
copy attached.
As you can see, the cost for a deposit return system for non-alcoholic beverages is significant
($79.8 million). This figure was based on a review of total amortized capital and operating costs
per returned container in other jurisdictions. It suggests that $0.08 per container would be a
reasonable gross cost per container in a mature return-to-depot system. Using a cost of $0.08 per
returned container, the total system cost for containers consumed at home, net of unredeemed
deposits and material sales, would be $79.8 million per year.
The most cost efficient system would be to have the LCBO on deposit/return and all other beverage
containers in a municipal system paid for by a levy. The total cost would be $52.0 million with
581,000 tonnes recovered. With all beverage containers on deposit/return the total cost would be
$126.5 million with 618,000 tonnes recovered.
The consumer will pay the cost. Surely a Blue Box system for non-alcoholic beverage containers
with LCBO containers under deposits costing $52.0 million makes more sense than a system with
all beverage containers under deposits costing $126.5 million. These figures are for retrieval of
beverages consumed at home.
I think we should ask the Province to institute deposit/return for the LCBO across Ontario and to
require all other producers to pay the $48.6 million cost to recover their materials from the Ontario
waste stream.
Glenda Geis, the consultant used by the RCO, would be pleased to meet with the Works and Utilities
Committee to discuss the report and all the details within it.)
(A copy of the summary of Provincial initiatives, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on
file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
communications from various persons and organizations regarding the implementation of a
deposit/return system for beverage containers:
(i) (March 24, 1998) from the General Manager, Alcan Rolled Products Company, addressed
to Councillor Betty Disero, advising of initiatives undertaken by Alcan with respect to
aluminum recycling, and enclosing background material in this regard;
(ii) (March 31,1998) from the Regional Director, Ontario, Canadian Council of Grocery
Distributors;
(iii) (April 1, 1998) from the President, Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc.;
(iv) (April 3, 1998) from the Director, Sales and Marketing, Metal Beverage Container
Operations, Ball Packaging Products Canada, Inc.;
(v) (April 6, 1998) from the Manager, Environmental Quality, Procter & Gamble Inc.;
(vi) (April 9, 1998) from the Vice President, Municipal Support, Corporations Supporting
Recycling (CSR);
(vii) (April 15, 1998) two communications from the President and CEO, Canadian Soft Drink
Association (CSDA);
(viii) (April 17, 1998) from the Vice President, Public Affairs, The Oshawa Group Limited;
(ix) (April 21, 1998) from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario,
forwarding, for information, a copy of a resolution enacted by the Corporation of the
Township of North Dorchester on April 6, 1998; and
(x) (April 28, 1998) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York - Humber, addressed to the
President and CEO, Canadian Soft Drink Association, responding to the President and
CEO's letter dated April 22, 1998, and enclosing an article titled, "Has Pepsi Canned the
Sixpack?".)
4
Mixed Waste Recycling and Organics
Processing Demonstration Facility
(City Council, at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, amended this Clause by adding
thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be
directed to ensure that consultation takes place with the surrounding industrial and
residential community and that a plan be developed for integrating the proposed facility into
the industrial community in a way that makes the industrial community an integral part of
the process.")
(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of
Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report
(March 11, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide a rationale for proceeding with the evaluation of the
proposals for the mixed waste recycling and organics processing demonstration facility, and to seek
approval to open the price proposals for the short-listed respondents to the Request for Proposals.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no immediate financial implications of these recommendations. Staff propose to report
back after evaluation of the proposals with capital and operating budget implications of the proposed
facility. Based on preliminary estimates, the combined amortized capital and operating cost of the
demonstration facility is projected to be in the $75.00 - $85.00 per tonne range. The projected
$8 million capital cost has been provided for in the proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program
under Project C-SW004-Recycling Facilities. Since the facility would be operational in late 1999,
there are no operating budget implications for 1998.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that staff be authorized to open the price proposals and complete the evaluation
process for the short-listed respondents to the Request for Proposals for a mixed waste recycling and
organics processing demonstration facility, and report back to Committee with recommendations.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting on April 9, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted, with amendments, Clause
No. 1 of Report No. 4 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, which recommended, in
part, that:
(1) authority be granted to the Commissioner of Works for an expenditure of $100,000.00 after
municipal GST rebate, within funding limits previously approved, to engage a qualified
engineering consultant to prepare the Request for Proposals for the design, construction and
operation of a 20,000 tonne per year composting and mixed waste processing demonstration
facility, and to evaluate responses; and
(2) subject to approval of the above recommendation, the Commissioner of Works be authorized
to issue a Request for Proposals for the design, construction and operation of a 20,000 tonne
per year composting and mixed waste processing facility capable of processing both
source-separated organic waste and mixed waste.
Subsequently, at its meeting on July 2 and 3, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted, with amendments,
Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of The Environment and Public Space Committee which recommended
"that Metro Toronto commit to a waste diversion target of at least 50 percent of residential waste by
the year 2006."
Staff had recommended the target of 50 percent waste diversion by 2006 based on the analysis of
waste diversion options presented in the "Preliminary Metro 3Rs Strategy - Draft Report" by
Resource Integration Systems Ltd. (RIS), dated November 28, 1996. Staff also advised that the
50 percent diversion target could be achieved through an expanded Blue/Grey Box recycling system,
together with some combination of organics composting and/or mixed waste processing.
In September 1997, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design, construction and
operation of a 20,000 tonne per year mixed waste recycling and organics processing demonstration
facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station located in the former City of North York.
The RFP closed on January 8, 1998, and a total of seven proposals was received. An RFP
Evaluation Committee consisting of staff from the Works, Finance, and Legal Departments, as well
as MacViro Consultants Inc. (the consultants who prepared the RFP document), is conducting an
evaluation of the Technical Proposals to develop a short list. The proposal call is a two-envelope
process in which the price information is opened only if a respondent's proposal is short-listed.
Direction from Council is now requested prior to opening the price proposals.
Discussion and Justification:
The mixed waste recycling and organics processing demonstration facility is a key element of the
strategy to achieve 50 percent waste diversion by 2006, because it will be used to determine the role
that mixed waste processing and source-separated organics processing facilities will play in
achieving the diversion target. The utilization of one or both approaches is essential to achieving
this 50 percent target.
The facility is being designed to accept both a mixed waste stream (15,000 tonnes per year) and a
source-separated organics stream (5,000 tonnes per year). The design will be flexible to allow the
facility to be converted to a dedicated mixed waste processing plant or a dedicated organics
composting plant after the demonstration phase.
This strategy was developed to manage financial risks by allowing the City to test both processing
approaches prior to committing to develop full-scale processing capability, and by building a facility
that has the flexibility to be modified to perform a range of diversion functions in the future.
The specific objectives for constructing the demonstration facility are as follows:
(1) to demonstrate the successful operation of a mixed waste recycling and organic processing
facility within City of Toronto boundaries, the operation of which is considered an essential
component in achieving a overall waste diversion rate of 50 percent or higher in the City;
(2) to provide a facility at which various 3Rs systems approaches can be tested, including:
(a) processing of mixed waste from apartment buildings and municipally collected
commercial locations;
(b) processing source-separated organics from single-family households and municipally
collected commercial locations; and
(c) processing the wet (organic) fraction of a residential wet/dry system; and
(3) to construct a modular facility which, after the demonstration phase, can be expanded into
a full-scale mixed waste recycling and organics processing facility, or a source-separated
organics processing facility.
Each of these approaches listed in point (2) above would provide useful input into the selection of
a preferred 3Rs strategy, while the facility itself could be adapted to play a major role in any future
3Rs systems. For instance, if separate organic waste collection and processing is demonstrated to
be technically and economically viable, it could lead to a decision to implement a three-stream
system for all single-family residences, and the facility could be expanded to accommodate up to
50,000 tonnes per year of organic waste. Alternatively, if mixed waste processing is proven viable,
the facility could be expanded to process up to 100,000 tonnes per year of mixed waste from
apartment buildings. Even if a decision is made that no organics composting or mixed waste
processing of residential waste was required, the facility could process organics-rich mixed waste
from commercial areas serviced by municipal collection trucks.
We have received seven proposals in response to the RFP for a mixed waste recycling and organics
processing demonstration facility from the following respondents:
(1) AGRA Monenco Inc., in association with Wright Environmental and Machinex Inc.
(AGRA);
(2) B.W.S. Composting, a joint venture of M. Sullivan and Son and Bennett and Wright Group
Inc.;
(3) Groupe Conporec Inc. and Kamyr Enterprises Inc.;
(4) Miller Waste Systems;
(5) Organic Waste Conversion;
(6) Recycling and Composting Alliance, a joint venture of Stinnes Enerco, The State Group, and
RRT Design and Construction (Alliance); and
(7) Stone and Webster Canada Ltd., in association with Canada Composting Inc.
The proposal screening and evaluation process being undertaken by the RFP Evaluation Committee
involves the following four steps, as described on pages 26-30 of the RFP document:
Step (1) Initial screening of the technical proposals to ensure compliance with the minimum
requirements set out in the RFP.
Step (2) Detailed technical evaluation of the remaining submissions.
Step (3) Requests for supplemental technical information and cost information from selected
respondents to obtain comparable information required for decision making. At the
completion of this step, proposals undergoing further consideration will form the
short list.
Step (4) Opening of price proposals from the short-listed respondents and determination of
the proposal that provides the best overall value to the City of Toronto.
As a result of the Step (1) screening, the following respondents are still under consideration:
(1) AGRA;
(2) Miller Waste Systems;
(3) Alliance; and
(4) Stone and Webster.
Each of the facilities proposed by the above respondents involves front-end processing to remove
recyclables from the mixed waste stream, and then processing of the organic fraction to produce
compost material. Three of the proposals involve aerobic composting technology, while the fourth
(Stone and Webster) involves anaerobic digestion technology producing both compost and biogas
for energy production. The proposed facilities all guarantee a minimum of 60 percent diversion from
the mixed waste input stream and 90 percent diversion from the source-separated organics input
stream. With respect to compost material produced from the mixed waste stream, the selected
respondent does have the option of paying the City of Toronto $50.00 per tonne to manage the
material on their behalf, if they are unable to secure markets.
The selected respondent will be responsible for designing, constructing and then operating the
facility for a one to three-year period, and will be fully responsible for marketing all output material.
The City of Toronto will own the facility which will be located at our Dufferin Transfer Station
property at 35 Vanley Crescent in North York.
Based on preliminary estimates, the demonstration facility is projected to cost approximately
$8 million to design and construct, and have a net operating cost of $30.00 - $40.00 per tonne, for
a combined amortized capital and operating cost of $75.00 - $85.00 per tonne. Although the
projected cost for this facility is higher than anticipated future waste transfer and long haul disposal
costs, there are strategic benefits to testing the technology on a small scale before making major
capital investments. The design will be modular to allow for future facility expansion to achieve
greater economies of scale, once the facility is proven to be viable. Based on preliminary estimates,
a full-scale mixed waste recycling facility is projected to cost $60.00 to $70.00 per tonne to build
and operate.
Prior to opening the price proposals and completing Step (4) of the evaluation process, we are
requesting direction from the Works and Utilities Committee and Council on how to proceed.
Assuming that a decision is made to proceed with the proposed demonstration facility, the following
planning steps need to be taken in future years:
(1) test 3Rs systems involving source separated organics composting and mixed waste
processing, utilizing the proposed demonstration facility (1999-2000);
(2) based on test results, decide on the future role of mixed waste processing and
source-separated organics composting (2001); and
(3) proceed with implementation of the required processing capacity and collection system
modifications, in accordance with the decisions made above (2001-2006).
A decision not to proceed with the demonstration facility would have the following ramifications:
(1) achieving 50 percent waste diversion by 2006 would not be possible under the planning
approach to 3Rs facility development as previously adopted by the former Metropolitan
Council. City of Toronto Council would need to adopt a new planning approach to
identifying a preferred 3Rs strategy with new timelines for 3Rs facility development and
diversion targets; and
(2) the residual waste volumes required for disposal would have to be reviewed given that
Toronto's Environmental Assessment (EA) Draft Terms of Reference for Long-Term Waste
Disposal is based on four planning principles, one of which is that the 3Rs Strategy will
identify residual waste quantities requiring disposal. The submission of the EA based on the
Terms of Reference would have to await the adoption of a revised planning approach to
identifying a preferred 3Rs strategy.
Conclusions:
Based on the important role that the proposed demonstration facility has in terms of both 3Rs system
planning and long-term disposal planning, it is recommended that we be authorized to complete the
proposal evaluation process and report back to Committee with recommendations.
Contact Name:
Andrew Pollock, Senior Manager - Waste Diversion and Planning
Solid Waste Management Division, Metro Hall
Phone: (416) 392-4715; Fax: (416) 392-4754
E-mail: Andy_Pollock@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
(City Council, at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during
consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following chart, submitted by the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services:
Mixed Waste Recycling and Organics Processing
(1) No change to householders disposal habits for mixed waste processing i.e., continue to place
waste in green garbage bags and place them out for collection.
(2) Reduces the amount of waste going to the Keele Valley landfill site thereby extending the
landfill's life expectancy.
(3) A public information meeting was held in the area around the proposed facility to educate
the neighbours about the facility, however, the turnout was very low.
(4) Allows the City of Toronto to determine if mixed waste processing is a viable option,
particularly for waste from apartment buildings.
(5) As shown on the sketch below there will be minimal impact on the truck traffic coming into
the site as the 15,000 tonnes of mixed waste required annually to operate the plant at full
capacity will come from the waste already going into the adjoining transfer station. The
other 5,000 tonnes of organic waste may be redirected to the site from other transfer
stations.
Annual flow of waste at Dufferin Site
prior to Mixed Waste Facility
being constructed |
Annual flow of waste at Dufferin Site
after Mixed Waste Facility
is constructed |
75,200
![](wu3ar0{image1}.gif)
Tonnes
Total Tonnes into site:
75,200 |
![](wu3ar0{image2}.gif) 60,200
Tonnes
![](wu3ar0{image4}.gif) 15,000
Tonnes
5,000
Tonnes
Total Tonnes into site:
80,200
|
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY DISERO,
Chair
Toronto, March 25, 1998
(Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as
amended, by City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 28 and May 1, 1998
WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 3A
Clause Page
1 Deposit/Return System for Alcoholic
and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers 3256
4 Mixed Waste Recycling and Organics
Processing Demonstration Facility 3304
|