TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 4

1Burning of Waste Oil

2Consulting Services - Construction Supervision andAdministration, Western Beaches Storage Tunnel(Trinity-Niagara, High Park)

3Cogeneration Facility, Humber Treatment Plant -Contract No. WPC-11-97

4Water Main Cleaning and Cement Lining atVarious Locations in the Etobicoke District -Contracts Nos. EB9801WS and EB9802WS

5Cleaning and Cement Mortar Relining ofExisting Water Mains, Scarborough District -Contract No. 11-98, Phase 1

6Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining ofExisting Water Mains, North York District -Contract No. NY9880WS

7Procedures for Retendering Existing Contracts for WasteCollection, and Provision for In-House Opportunity

8Keele Valley Landfill Site -Amendment to Technical Services Agreement

9Appointments to Consultation Committees

10Appointments to Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee

11Charitable Waste Management Grant

12Pickering Nuclear Generating Station

13Sanitary Discharge Agreement

14Acceptance of Quotations for Polyelectrolytes

15Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

________

REPORT No. 4

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on April 22, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

___________

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

__________

1

Burning of Waste Oil

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the report dated April 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be adopted, subject to:

(a)striking out Recommendation No. (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (2):

'(2)the Minister of the Environment be requested to ban the use of waste oil burners in the urban area of Toronto, as already defined in Ministry of the Environment regulations which prohibit the sale of high sulphur gasoline;'; and

(b)inserting in Recommendations Nos. (5) and (6), after the words 'does not', the words 'move to', and after the word 'discontinue', the words 'by September1, 1998';

so that the recommendations embodied in such report shall now read as follows:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the Minister of the Environment be requested to discontinue the issuance of air approvals for waste oil burners where re-refining facilities are available;

(2)the Minister of the Environment be requested to ban the use of waste oil burners in the urban area of Toronto, as already defined in Ministry of the Environment regulations which prohibit the sale of high sulphur gasoline;

(3) communications to the public should continue to prevent the dumping of waste oil into sewers or the environment;

(4) all City fleets adopt the use of re-refined oil that meets manufacturers warranty requirements, subject to availability and reasonable cost differential;

(5) if the Minister does not move to discontinue, by September 1, 1998, the approval of waste oil burners permanently, the Province of Ontario be requested to give municipalities the option to adopt by-laws that prohibit the use in their respective jurisdictions and that take precedence over approvals issued under the Environmental Protection Act, section 9; and

(6)if the Minister does not move to discontinue, by September 1, 1998, the air approval of waste oil burners permanently, the Province be requested through an appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights to give municipalities standing in the review and setting of new more stringent air emission standards under Regulation 346.';

(2)the recommendation of the Board of Health embodied in the transmittal letter dated May 12, 1998, from the City Clerk, wherein it is recommended that the report dated May 7, 1998, from the Medical Officer of Health, respecting Burning of Waste Oil - Health and Environmental Impacts, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)the Minister of the Environment be requested to develop a sunset regulation which phases out the use of waste oil heaters in urban areas by January 1, 2000;

(2)the City Solicitor further investigate options to eliminate waste oil use in space heaters, including options under the Municipal Act and land use regulation under the Planning Act;

(3)the Minister of the Environment be requested to implement a mandatory waste oil collection program and require retailers to take back waste oil for re-refining;

(4)the Minister of the Environment be requested to provide copies to the Medical Officer of Health of all inspection and/or sampling reports pertaining to the 47waste oil heaters operating in Toronto; and

(5)the Minister of the Environment be requested to consult medical officers of health across Ontario on the review of air quality standards.'; and

(3)the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee:

Moved by Councillor Sgro:

'It is recommended that Council adopt the following by-law to prohibit the use of used motor oil for space heating by or in businesses in the City of Toronto:

"WHEREAS Toronto residents currently bear the monetary, human health and environmental costs of air pollution; and

WHEREAS space heaters burning used motor oil generate significantly more pollution than other fuels used for space heating; and

WHEREAS space heaters currently burning used oil can burn cleaner fuels without modification and at no capital cost; and

WHEREAS current provincial regulations do not prohibit the burning of used oil for space heating; and

WHEREAS current provincial regulations improperly define used oil as a waste and not as recyclable material of value; and

WHEREAS the destruction of a recyclable material to the detriment of the environment is in contravention to the Ministry of the Environment's stated policy commitment to the 3Rs hierarchy of Reduction, Reuse and Recycling; and

WHEREAS Section 257.2 of the Municipal Act authorizes by-laws for licensing, regulating and governing any business carried on within the municipality;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

(1)in this By-law,

(a)'used motor oil' means lubricating oil that has been used as a lubricant in any commercial or industrial operation or as a lubricant in the crankcase of motor vehicles; and

(b)'space heater' means a device that, through combustion of fuel provides heat energy to an internal or external area;

(2)the purpose of this by-law is to prohibit the use of used motor oil for space heating;

(3)no business may burn 'used motor oil' for space heat within the municipality of the City of Toronto; and

(4)concurrent with the beginning of the fall heating season, this by-law comes into force at 11:59 p.m. on September l, 1998." ' ")

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having directed that the reports dated April 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and April 16, 1998, from the City Solicitor be submitted to Council without recommendation.

The Works and Utilities Committee further reports having:

(1)referred the aforementioned reports and communications and the following motions to a special meeting of the Committee to be held on May 11, 1998, for the hearing of deputations:

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

"That the report dated April 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be amended by:

(i)striking out the words "where re-refining facilities are available" in Recommendation No. (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the words "where access to re-refining services exists";

(ii)striking out Recommendation No. (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(2)the Minister of the Environment be requested to ban the use of waste oil burners in the urban area of Toronto, as already defined in Ministry of the Environment regulations which prohibit the sale of high sulphur gasoline;" and

(iii)adding thereto the following recommendations:

"(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a draft by-law which would have the effect of banning the use of waste oil burners in the City of Toronto; and

(7)if the City of Toronto takes the position that waste oil burners should be banned, it advise the members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and invite their support"; and

Moved by Councillor Walker:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor be requested to develop a draft by-law on the banning of space heaters, and that a public hearing take place at that time";

(2)requested that all interested parties be advised accordingly; and

(3)invited the Medical Officer of Health to provide her comments in connection with the foregoing matter to the special meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on May 11, 1998.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (April 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend against the burning of waste oil where re-refining is available and cost-competitive compared with virgin motor oil, and to emphasize that waste oil should be recycled safely and not discharged into the sanitary or storm sewer system or the ground water.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct funding implications of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Minister of the Environment be requested to discontinue the issuance of air approvals for waste oil burners where re-refining facilities are available;

(2)the Minister of the Environment be requested to consider placing a sunset regulation on existing air approvals for waste oil burners in urban areas;

(3) communications to the public should continue to prevent the dumping of waste oil into sewers or the environment;

(4) all City fleets adopt the use of re-refined oil that meets manufacturers warranty requirements, subject to availability and reasonable cost differential;

(5) if the Minister does not discontinue the approval of waste oil burners permanently, the Province of Ontario be requested to give Municipalities the option to adopt by-laws that prohibit the use in their respective jurisdictions and that take precedence over approvals issued under the Environmental Protection Act, section 9; and

(6)if the Minister does not discontinue the air approval of waste oil burners permanently, the Province be requested through an appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights to give municipalities standing in the review and setting of new more stringent air emission standards under Regulation 346.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The March 25, 1998 agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee included an item on the burning of waste oil requesting a staff report to:

"identify options to ban or grandfather the operation of used oil furnaces within the City of Toronto; and identify options to increase the recovery of used motor oil and thereby divert it from burning in space heaters and from fouling the City of Toronto's sewage treatment facilities."

Waste oil burners are subject to the Ontario Environmental Protection Act under two sections:

Section 9 -Air Emissions and Regulation 346 which establishes point of impingement standards; and

Section 27 -Waste Management and Regulation 347.

Waste oil burners must have a certificate of approval under Section 9 - Air Emissions and comply with the standards in Regulation 346.

Section 27 refers to the management of used oil as a waste. Waste oil burners are exempt from the requirement to obtain a certificate of approval under Section 27 if less than 10 tonnes is burned per day and if only oil generated on site is burned. Regardless of the exemption from obtaining a certificate of approval, waste oil burners must still meet the standards under Section 27, Regulation347.

The Ministry is undergoing a three-year review of all standards. The air standards for waste oil burners are due for a review. Municipalities have the option of requesting a review of the standards through the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Minister of the Environment has placed the issue of "Small Used Oil Space Heaters" on the Environmental Bill of Right Registry for public comment by May 31, 1998. To comment by that deadline, this item would have to be considered by City Council at its meeting on May 13, 14 and 15, 1998, and by Works and Utilities Committee on April 22, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Approximately 500 million litres of lubricants are sold in Ontario each year. Approximately half are lost in use. Between 1995 and 1996, the quantity of re-refined oil fell from approximately 87.5 million litres to approximately 68 million litres, and the quantity of waste oil burned increased from approximately 10 million litres to approximately 18 million litres.

Approximately 75 million litres are unaccounted for. It has been estimated that one litre of oil can contaminate one million litres of ground water. Disposal of oil into sanitary sewers can interfere with the operation of wastewater treatment plants.

There are 47 existing waste oil burner locations in the City of Toronto. Referring to census data distributed geographically in the City of Toronto, there are 32,469 Toronto citizens living within 250metres of waste oil burners.

The burning of waste oil releases the following contaminants to the atmosphere:

-Sulphur Oxides;

-Nitrogen Oxides;

-Carbon Monoxide;

-Fine particulate;

-Carbon Dioxide;

-Volatile Organic Compounds;

-Arsenic;

-Chromium;

-Cobalt;

-Lead;

-Manganese;

-Nickel; and

-Zinc.

Health Impacts:

The Ontario Ministry of Health will be requested to comment on the waste oil burner issue. Staff of the City Medical Officer of Health have expressed concern about the potential health effects to populations in close proximity to existing waste oil burners in the City of Toronto. Fine particulate is invisible and enters deep into the lungs and can cause asthma and other respiratory ailments.

Positions of Stakeholders:

City of Toronto vehicle fleet operators return used motor oil for re-refining. Operators use either re-refined oil that meets manufacturers warranty requirements or virgin motor oil depending on low bid. Often re-refined oil has been less expensive than virgin motor oil. The amalgamated City of Toronto has significant purchasing power and will benefit from bulk purchasing of re-refined oil. Other fleets in Toronto, if not already doing so, should be encouraged to return used oil for re-refining and to use re-refined oil in their fleets. There is surplus capacity for re-refining in Ontario and therefore capacity is not an issue. On the contrary, supply of used oil is sometimes limited and restricts supply of re-refined oil. The number of waste oil burners is increasing and the supply of used oil for refining is falling. This trend should be reversed to improve air quality and reduce CO₂emissions.

The following organizations support a moratorium on the issuance of new approvals for Waste Derived Fuel (WDF) heaters in Ontario until the emissions of these heaters are fully studied and understood. In addition, these organizations recognize recycling as the preferred management option for used oil:

-Canadian Automobile Association;

-Canadian Petroleum Products Institute;

-Canadian Re-Refiners Association;

-The Lung Association;

-Ontario Natural Gas Association;

-Pollution Probe; and

-Recycling Council of Ontario.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) has written to the Minister of the Environment to state concern about the approval of waste oil burners by the Ministry of the Environment. The CPPI represents marketers of lubricants.

The Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) promotes the recycling of waste oil. The RCO advocates initiatives to prevent waste oil disposal in landfills.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment published the "Code of Practice for Used Oil Management in Canada", in 1989. The following provincial policies arose as a result.

Summary of Provincial Policies:

Generally the western provinces, where new virgin oil is produced, have been promoting the proper management of used engine oil. A table in the Appendix to this report summarizes provincial regulations across Canada.

Sewer Use By-law:

Toronto Sewer Use By-laws prohibit the discharge of engine oil into the sewer system for treatment at the City wastewater treatment plants. There is a low limit of 15 ppm of mineral or synthetic oil. Engine oil is well over 15 ppm. Dumping of engine oil into catch basins directs engine oil to the water courses and waterfront of the City. When notified, industrial waste control staff pump out catch basin sumps to remove engine oil.

By-law Enforcement/Licensing:

The City Solicitor has been requested to confirm that municipalities have the power to pass a by-law under the Municipal Act governing waste oil burners. However, Legal staff have advised that, if a by-law is not consistent with provincial legislation or regulation, the provincial requirement supersedes the municipal by-law. Specifically, if the Province approves a waste oil burner, the operation of the waste oil burner cannot be prevented by a municipal by-law. If the Minister continues the hold on new approvals indefinitely, then a municipal by-law would govern. Regarding future approvals, a City by-law prohibiting waste oil burners would be a clear policy statement to the Minister not to allow the approval of additional waste oil burners in the municipality. Regulation of vehicle maintenance facilities for emissions protects neighbouring residents by establishing emission standards.

Public Communication:

The public regularly receives a clear message not to dispose of waste oil in sanitary or storm sewers through City communications . For example, the newsletter "Water Watch" has included articles on water quality every year. Samples of communications materials available to the public include the booklet "Recipes for a Cleaner Planet", and advertisements that appear regularly in the daily newspapers. The public is invited to contact the Household Hazardous Waste Hotline at (416)392-4330 to find out the location of the nearest depot accepting used oil and other household hazardous wastes.

Smog Plan:

The Province, in cooperation with business, industry, government and the public, has proposed a Smog Plan earlier this year. The Smog Plan consists of many component initiatives all of which when added up will significantly reduce smog in Ontario.

The elimination of the burning of waste oil where re-refining facilities are available will contribute to the overall reduction of smog precursors including NOx and fine particulate. The Minister should be requested to include in his Smog Plan the elimination of waste oil burners where re-refining exists.

There is the broader issue that each of the approximately 1.1 million vehicles registered to Toronto residents has varying investments in pollution control equipment depending on model year. Burning of used oil in waste oil burners releases to the atmosphere contaminants in the crankcase oil. Organizations representing vehicle dealerships and maintenance facilities are promoting the early implementation of mandatory vehicle emissions testing and maintenance. The same group of businesses should be encouraged to discontinue the use of waste oil burners.

Climate Change:

Councils have supported and promoted vehicle emissions testing and maintenance not only to reduce emissions that result in smog, but also to increase overall fleet fuel efficiency. Vehicle emissions testing and maintenance programs in other jurisdictions have realized overall fuel savings of approximately 10 percent. For individual vehicles, the savings has exceeded 61 percent. Less fuel burned means less emissions of CO₂. The burning of waste oil increases CO₂ emissions and negates the gains from tune-ups. The energy required to process oil from the ground is greater than to re-refine used engine oil. Use of re-refined engine oil reduces overall CO₂ emissions.

Information Sources:

Sources of information for the preparation of this report include the following organizations:

-City Solicitor's Department;

-Medical Officer of Health's Department;

-Works and Emergency Services: Interim Lead Commissioner, Fleet Management;

-Interim Functional Lead, By-law Enforcement/Licensing;

-Works and Emergency Services: Communications, Waste Management and Water and Wastewater;

-Ministry of the Environment: Approvals Branch and Waste Reduction Branch;

-Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights Registry;

-Provincial Ministries of Environment in Canada;

-Ontario Smog Plan Steering Committee;

-Canadian Petroleum Products Institute;

-Safety Kleen Canada, Inc.;

-Recycling Council of Ontario;

-Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy;

-Consultant: General Science Works Inc.; and

-Consultant: Paul H. Scrivener and Associates.

Conclusions:

Fleet managers specify re-refined engine oil for fleet vehicles subject to availability and cost. Fleet managers should return engine oil to be re-refined.

There is a strong consensus in support of the proper management of used oil in provinces across Canada. The Minister of the Environment should be requested to make permanent the hold on issuance of approvals for new waste oil burners in areas where access to re-refining facilities is available. The Minister of the Environment should be requested to establish a sunset regulation for the existing approvals of waste oil burners after a suitable cost recovery period.

Businesses offering vehicle maintenance services that promote use of re-refined oil should be showcased as leaders in the industry. Automobile manufacturers that ship new vehicles with re-refined oil in the crankcase should be showcased as leaders in the industry. Automobile manufacturers that discourage the use of waste oil burners in their dealerships should be showcased.

The public should be informed that approximately 75 million litres of used engine oil is unaccounted for each year in Ontario, and that every effort should be made to direct used oil to re-refining.

Contact Name:

Kevin Loughborough, P. Eng. - Works and Emergency Services

Tel. No. (416) 392- 8845; Fax No. (416) 392-4540

Appendix

Provincial Regulations for the Management of Used Oil in Canada

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (April 16, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the identification of options to ban or grandfather the operation of used oil furnaces within the City of Toronto for consideration by Committee in conjunction with the report dated April 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications of this report.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The March 25, 1998 agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee included a communication from Councillor Sgro on the burning of waste oil, and requested a staff report to:

"identify options to ban or grandfather the operation of used oil furnaces within the City of Toronto; and identify options to increase the recovery of used motor oil and thereby divert it from burning in space heaters and from fouling the City of Toronto sewage treatment facilities."

The Committee will have before it a report, dated April 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the matter. This report is intended to be considered in conjunction with that report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The communication from Councillor Sgro is addressing waste oil heaters which are typically used by small businesses such as automobile service stations and car dealerships. The used oil taken from cars in oil changes is utilized as a fuel or fuel supplement in heating the premises of these operations. The concern relates to the toxins that exist in used oil.

(a)Provincial Regulation of Oil Heaters:

Businesses burning used oil in these heaters must have a certificate of approval ("C of A") (air) for emissions under the Environmental Protection Act ("EPA"). The issuance of these C of As has been placed on hold and the Ministry of the Environment ("MOE") is now consulting with the public on the environmental impacts of these heaters through the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. Under the EPA, used motor fuel is considered a waste-derived fuel and a site where such fuel is utilized is defined as a waste derived fuel site. By the EPA, a waste derived fuel site is for the most part exempt from the need to have a C of A for a waste disposal or waste management site.

(b)Possible Municipal Options:

Three suggestions have been made about the City's own ability to ban or grandfather the operation of the heaters. The options are:

(1)the use of the Health Protection and Promotion Act;

(2)the use of paragraph 156 of section 210 of the Municipal Act (Regulation of Heating Appliances); and

(3)the use of the licensing provisions contained in the Municipal Act.

(1)Health Protection and Promotion Act:

This option exists but requires an order of the Medical Officer of Health on an individual basis.

(2)Regulation of Heating Appliances:

Paragraph 156 of section 210 of the Municipal Act provides for the power of a municipality to pass a by-law as follows:

"156.For regulating, controlling and inspecting heating and cooking appliances, or any classes thereof, the installation thereof and the storage of fuel for use in connection therewith.

158. For the purposes of any by-law passed under paragraph 156, for adopting by reference to the Ontario Regulations as amended from time to time the codes and standards or the parts thereof as adopted and changed by regulation under the Ontario Energy Board Act. R.S.O. 1980, c. 302, s. 210, para.156".

Under this option, a by-law could be passed regulating the use of waste oil heaters, as a class of heating appliance.

(3)The Licensing Provisions of the Municipal Act:

Section 257.2 of the Municipal Act 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. The suggestion being made is that the conditions of licensing can be wide-ranging and, in particular, may relate to the regulation of equipment and other personal property used in the business. Public garages and automobile service stations are currently licensed under the City's Licensing By-law.

(c)Conflict with Provincial Approvals:

The problem that will exist if either Option (2) or (3) is utlilized, relates to the issue of conflict as enunciated by two Ontario Court of Appeal cases - Superior Propane Inc. and Propane Gas Association v. Corporation of the City of York and Re. Attorney-General for Ontario et al. and City of Mississauga. There may well be conflict in that the purpose of any proposed by-law appears to be the prohibition of the burning of waste-derived fuel. Section 9 of the EPA states as follows:

"9. (1)No person shall, except under and in accordance with a certificate of approval issued by the Director,

(a) construct, alter, extend or replace any plant, structure, equipment, apparatus, mechanism or thing that may discharge or from which may be discharged a contaminant into any part of the natural environment other than water; or

(b)alter a process or rate of production with the result that a contaminant may be discharged into any part of the natural environment other than water or the rate or manner of discharge of a contaminant into any part of the natural environment other than water may be altered."

In short, the issue appears to fall squarely within the Mississauga case where the court held there was a conflict between the predecessor of section 9 and a Mississauga by-law banning the burning of PCBs. The Mississauga by-law was based on explicit statutory authority under the Municipal Act (now paragraph 134 of section 210) which provided for by-laws to be passed as follows:

"For regulating manufactures and trades that in the opinion of the council may prove to be or may cause nuisances of any kind, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, for prohibiting or regulating the erection or continuance of gas works, tanneries or distilleries or other manufactories or trades that, in the opinion of the council, may prove to be or may cause nuisances."

Mr. Justice Morden of the Court, in holding the Mississauga by-law to be invalid, stated:

"In a case where no certificate of approval is issued the two laws practically duplicate each other and there is no room for municipal regulation. Where a certificate had been issued then, it appears to me, the absolute prohibition in the by-law clashes with the legislative scheme embodied in the statute and the proper implementation of this scheme. The two pieces of legislation, in this regard, are at cross purposes. They are repugnant to each other. They both are intended to protect the environment and it cannot reasonably be thought that the issuance of a certificate of approval involves any diminishment of this policy."

This statement was also referred to in Superior Propane in holding that a City of York land use by-law restricting and regulating propane storage and dispensing facilities was at cross purposes with regulations under the Energy Act. The Court also held that the by-law was improper, having as its basic and predominant purpose the advancement of safety concerns respecting the handling of propane and not land use planning. The Court also felt there was no reasonable basis for the argument that the by-law merely enhanced a law.

All of the above principles on conflict enunciated by the Court of Appeal would likely be brought to bear in attacks on either a by-law under paragraph 156 of section 210 (option 2) or section 257.2 (option 3) of the Municipal Act. The fact that there is at present a moratorium on the issuance of new approvals for these facilities does not legally alleviate the conflict on the basis of the principles set forth in the above cases.

The new Draft Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft Act") has been released for public consultation. While the Draft Act would confer on municipalities the capacity, rights and powers of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under any Act, there are statutory restrictions surrounding the mandates that are granted. In particular, a by-law would be without effect to the extent of any conflict with a provincial Act, or 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) would be 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. The provisions of the Draft Act, then, may be considered to be a codification of the principles in the Superior Propane case and perhaps more restrictive.

Subject to the above, option (2) may be preferable to option (3) based on the reasoning that option(2) provides specific authority to regulate any class of heating appliances; an argument could at least be made that it is the equipment which is being regulated not the burning. A regulation would have to prohibit any heating equipment which utilizes used oil. The use of licensing as a regulatory mechanism may be more problematic given the competing interests of section 9 of the EPA and the generality of the licensing provisions.

One other option that bears mentioning surrounds the utilization of land use regulations under the Planning Act. In 1996, the former City of Toronto enacted an "anti-incineration" land use by-law prohibiting incineration of waste within the City of Toronto (it also enacted other Municipal Code by-laws on the basis of its private legislation). Under the by-law, "waste" includes waste-derived fuel. The by-law was appealed by a number of persons, including The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The by-law remains in abeyance before the Ontario Municipal Board.

While the principle of conflict remains an issue in relation to land use regulation (particularly as the Superior Propane case dealt with a York land use regulation), there may be an option of examining the expansion of the by-law, if enacted, as part of the policy review relating to the whole issue of incineration. The advantage of the utilization of the Planning Act is in the fact that it has its own paramountcy clause.

Conclusions:

Any regulatory option by the City of Toronto to prohibit the burning of waste oil in space heaters is likely invalid on the basis of conflict with regulatory approvals under the Environmental Protection Act as enunciated in the Superior Propane Inc. and Propane Gas Association v. Corporation of the City of York and Re. Attorney-General for Ontario et al. and City of Mississauga cases. The principle of conflict as enunciated by the Superior Propane case, in particular, would apply notwithstanding the present moratorium on certificates of approvals (air) for the burning of waste oil. The Draft Act expressly incorporates the principle of conflict.

Contact Name:

J. Anderson, Senior Solicitor, 392-8059

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (February 19, 1998) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber:

Please find attached several recent articles and documents pertaining to the management of used oil. Please note the rather disturbing comments made by the Minister of the Environment in the February18th issue of The Record regarding this issue.

A recent report by the Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy identified the pollution from uncontrolled burning of used oil as a major hazardous waste issue. There are 42 used oil furnaces operating in garages and other automotive facilities within the City of Toronto's boundaries (see the December 3, 1997 NOW magazine article attached).

The City of Toronto has a progressive policy of requiring the use of re-refined motor oil in its vehicles. Collection and re-refining diverts used oil from sewers and from becoming an air pollutant once burned in space heaters. An environmental group has given me some recent articles and technical papers on the subject and I would suggest that staff undertake the following analyses:

-identify options to ban or grandfataher the operation of used oil furnaces within the City of Toronto; and

-identify options to increase the recovery of used motor oil and thereby divert it from burning in space heaters and from fouling the City of Toronto's sewage treatment facilities.

I hope the attached information is useful.

--------

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, a copy of which has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)(March 23, 1998) from Mr. John Hanson, Executive Director, Recycling Council of Ontario, expressing support for a proposed Toronto by-law to address the issue of waste-derived fuel furnaces, and for re-refining as the preferred option for dealing with oil; and requesting the opportunity to make a deputation when the Committee discusses this issue;

(ii)(March 20, 1998) from Mr. Ken Ogilvie, Executive Director, Pollution Probe, advising that Pollution Probe is a very strong advocate for improving air quality and encouraging governments at all levels to take actions that support this objective; and requesting the opportunity to make a deputation to the Committee regarding the burning of used oil in Toronto;

(iii)(March 23, 1998) from Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance, recommending that the Committee direct staff to develop options for the banning of burning of used motor oil, and direct the Medical Officer of Health to report on the health and environmental consequences of burning used oil in Toronto;

(iv)(March 23, 1998) from Mr. Ian C. Morton, Community Service Project Manager, Ontario Provincial Office, The Lung Association, in support of banning the sale of new waste derived fuel furnaces and to grandfather existing ones; and encouraging the Committee to urge the Ministry of the Environment to establish a mandatory used oil collection program, where feasible, to replace the voluntary approach currently in place;

(v)(March 25, 1998) from Mr. Usman A. Valiante, General Science Works Inc., submitting maps showing the location of used-oil furnaces within the City of Toronto and population statistics;

(vi)(April 20, 1998) from Mr. T. R. Clapp, Vice President, Ontario Division, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, requesting the opportunity to appear before the Committee with respect to the issue of the burning of used oil; and advising that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute supports recycling as the best practice for managing used oil, and endorses the current provincial ban on permitting new used oil fired space heaters; and

(vii)(April 21, 1998) from Mr. David Leonhardt, Director, Public and Government Relations, Canadian Automobile Association (Ontario), requesting the opportunity to appear before the Committee, and advising that CAA Ontario is opposed to the burning of used lubricating oil whenever another viable option is available.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Zivah Stocker, North York, Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. John Hanson, Executive Director, Recycling Council of Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Ian C. Morton, Director, Environmental Health, Pollution Probe, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Usman A. Valiante, General Science Works Inc.;

-Mr. T. R. Clapp, Vice-President, Ontario Division, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. David Leonhardt, Director, Public and Government Relations, Canadian Automobile Association;

-Mr. Ron Lugowski, De-On Supply Incorporated;

Mr. Doug Barnett, Reznor/Garage Supply Ltd.;

-Mr. Lloyd Clare, Environmental Permit Corporation;

-Ms. Melissa Brookfield, Ontario Provincial Office, The Lung Association;

-Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber, and submitted a press kit from Pollution Probe, The Lung Association, Recycling Council of Ontario, Toronto Environmental Alliance and CAA Ontario, and a list provided by the Ministry of the Environment indicating locations of waste oil furnaces; and

-Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights.

(A copy of the attachments to the foregoing communication from Councillor Sgro has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the 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 May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Board of Health recommends that the report (May 7, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health respecting Burning of Waste Oil - Health and Environmental Impacts be adopted.

Background:

The Board of Health on May 12, 1998, had before it a report (May 7, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health respecting Burning of Waste Oil - Health and Environmental Impacts, recommending that:

(1)the Minister of Environment be requested to develop a sunset regulation which phases out the use of waste oil heaters in urban areas by January 1, 2000;

(2)the City Solicitor further investigate options to eliminate waste oil use in space heaters, including options under the Municipal Act and land use regulation under the Planning Act;

(3)the Minister of Environment be requested to implement a mandatory waste oil collection program and require retailers to take back waste oil for re-refining;

(4)the Minister of Environment be requested to provide copies to the Medical Officer of Health of all inspection and/or sampling reports pertaining to the 47 waste oil heaters operating in Toronto; and

(5)the Minister of Environment be requested to consult medical officers of health across Ontario on the review of air quality standards.

(Report dated May 7, 1998, addressed to

the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health,

from the Medical Officer of Health.)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment on the potential health and environmental impacts, particularly with respect to air quality, associated with burning waste oil in space heaters. The discussion of potential impacts will provide the health and environment context for any decisions related to regulatory options available to the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This report has no direct funding implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Minister of Environment be requested to develop a sunset regulation which phases out the use of waste oil heaters in urban areas by January 1, 2000;

(2)the City Solicitor further investigate options to eliminate waste oil use in space heaters, including options under the Municipal Act and land use regulation under the Planning Act;

(3)the Minister of Environment be requested to implement a mandatory waste oil collection program and require retailers to take back waste oil for re-refining;

(4)the Minister of Environment be requested to provide copies to the Medical Officer of Health of all inspection and/or sampling reports pertaining to the 47 waste oil heaters operating in Toronto; and

(5)the Minister of Environment be requested to consult medical officers of health across Ontario on the review of air quality standards.

Background:

In a news release dated March 19, 1998 Environment Minister Norm Sterling placed an immediate hold on the approval of any new small space heaters that burn waste oil. The hold was put in place to allow for the collection of public input on the environmental impact of the heaters. The Ministry of Environment is participating with the Canadian Standards Association in the review of current operating standards for such heaters that burn waste oil and is considering the incorporation of environmental requirements into these standards. The Ministry has requested public comments through the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry by May 30, 1998.

At its meeting of April 22, 1998 the Works and Utilities Committee had before it a communication (February 19, 1998) from Councillor Sgro, North York Humber requesting that staff undertake the following analyses:

(1)identify options to ban or grandfather the operation of used oil furnaces within the City of Toronto; and

(2)identify options to increase the recovery of used motor oil and thereby divert it from burning in space heaters and from fouling the City of Toronto's sewage treatment facilities.

The Committee also had before it a report (April 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that recommended against the burning of waste oil and emphasized that waste oil should be recycled safely and not discharged into the sanitary or storm sewer system or to ground water. The report specifically recommended that:

(1)the Minister of Environment be requested to discontinue the issuance of air approvals for waste oil burners where re-refining facilities are available;

(2)the Minister of Environment be requested to consider placing a sunset regulation on existing air approvals for waste oil burners in urban areas;

(3)communications to the public should continue to prevent the dumping of waste oil into sewers or the environment;

(4)all City fleets adopt the use of re-refined oil that meets manufacturers warranty requirements, subject to availability and reasonable cost differential;

(5)if the Minister does not discontinue the approval of waste oil burners permanently, the Province be requested to give Municipalities the option to adopt by-laws that prohibit the use in their respective jurisdictions and that take precedence over approvals issued under the Environmental Protection Act, Section 9; and

(6)if the Minister does not discontinue the air approval of waste oil burners permanently, the Province be requested through an appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights to give Municipalities standing in the review and setting of new more stringent air emission standards under Regulation 346.

The City Solicitor has reported (April 16, 1998) on options to ban or grandfather the operation of waste oil heaters, and has reviewed options available under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the Municipal Act and the Planning Act.

This issue was deferred to a special meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee to obtain comment from the Medical Officer of Health and to hear from a broad range of interested parties.

Comments:

(1) General:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in his report (April 8, 1998) has indicated that 400 to 500 million litres of lubricating oil are sold in Ontario annually. Approximately half of this material is consumed in the operating equipment or lost through leakage in use. A large percentage, 25 to 40 percent, of lubricating oil is sold to the automotive sector.

The fate of waste lubricating oil in Ontario includes re-refining for re-use, export for incineration, and use as fuel. Since 1995, there has been a decrease in the amount of oil being re-refined, an increase in the amount of oil exported for incineration, and an increase in the amount of waste oil burned as fuel (see Table 1). Table 1 clearly indicates that 30 percent of waste oil is unaccounted for, raising concerns about whether appropriate disposal options are being followed.

(2)Health and Environmental Impacts:

Waste lubricating oil can contain a number of contaminants such as carbon, sulphur, nitrogen, lead, cobalt, chromium, manganese, nickel, trichloroethylene, benzene, toluene, xylene, glycol. These contaminants are present in waste lubricating oil because: (1) they are components of the raw material from which the lubricating oil is made; (2) they have been added to enhance the performance of the lubricating oil; (3) they are breakdown products created when the oil is heated during use; (4) they are picked up during the oil's circulation through the engine; or (5) they have been mixed into the oil during disposal.

(a)Waste Oil Released into the Environment:

When waste lubricating oil is disposed of in landfills or on land, it can contaminate soil, run off to surface waters, or leach into groundwater. When dumped into sanitary sewers, waste oil can interfere with the sewage treatment process and affect the suitability of sewage sludge for application on agricultural land. Waste oil released directly or indirectly into surface waters can have detrimental effects on the plants and animals that live in the receiving watercourses. It has been estimated that one litre of oil can contaminate up to 1 million litres of water (RCO Update as cited in Winfield, 1998).

(b)Waste Oil Burned as a Fuel:

There are approximately 700 facilities in Ontario burning waste oil in space heaters; 47 of these facilities are located in Toronto. Typically, these facilities are automotive service stations, dealerships and fleet operators. In Toronto, they are located in close proximity to residential communities with schools and hospitals nearby. In 1996, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) found that 87 percent of the 660 small waste oil burning furnaces tested in the province were not in compliance with the MOE requirements regarding air emissions

When waste oil is burned as a fuel, the contaminants contained in the oil can be released into the atmosphere and dispersed into the general environment. Many of these compounds are persistent and do not readily degrade. In addition, pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, suspended particulates, carbon dioxide and sulphur compounds, which contribute to smog, global climate change and acid rain, will be emitted as the products of combustion.

Many of the compounds released from small waste oil furnaces are also released from other point sources such as industrial stacks and from mobile sources such as vehicles. Therefore, even though an individual source may comply with relevant regulations and stay within exposure limits, deterioration in air quality from many air pollution sources can result in exposures that could adversely impact upon human health and the environment. In the case of small waste oil burning furnaces, this cumulative argument is strengthened by the fact that so many do not comply with the relevant regulations.

Studies strongly suggest an association between poor air quality episodes in Toronto and southern Ontario and adverse respiratory effects including illness and death. A study on hospital admissions in Toronto found a significant association between hospital admission rates and elevated temperature and pollution levels, including ground level ozone and acid aerosols. Summertime haze air pollution was associated with 24 percent of all respiratory admissions (Thurston et al., 1994). Another study conducted by Steib and Burnett examined urgent respiratory admissions for 168 hospitals in Ontario. Positive and statistically significant associations were found between hospital admissions for respiratory distress and ground level ozone and sulphates. The largest impact appeared on children under two years of age in whom 15 percent of hospital admissions were attributed to ozone and sulphates together (Steib and Burnett, 1993).

Burnett also studied the association of daily cardiac and respiratory admissions in 168 hospitals across Ontario. In this study, the hospitalization rates increased with the increasing concentration of sulphates (Burnett et al., 1995). Another study examined the association between daily mortality and air pollution in Toronto. Analysis of the data showed a strong association between excess daily mortality due to respiratory disease and airborne particulate, haze, ground level ozone and nitrogen dioxide. An excess mortality of approximately 2 to 4 percent was attributed to the pollutants at a range observed in Toronto (Ozkaynak et al., 1996).

(3)Re-refining Waste Oil:

Most of the waste oil generated in Ontario can be recycled into oils and lubricants, asphalt extender and waste derived fuel of higher grade. Current re-refining capacity in Ontario exceeds the supply of waste oil collected in the province providing the incentive for significant import of waste oil (Winfield, 1998). Re-refining is the preferred method of re-use because it recycles natural resources in a way that minimizes impact on human health and the environment.

Re-refining facilities can have an impact on the environment as well. When they are not operated properly, they can produce liquid effluents or sludges which contain the contaminants found in waste, and they can produce air emissions and odours which can affect local communities. On balance, however, re-refining benefits the natural environment and human health because re-refining facilities are fewer in number and subject to more protective regulations. Greater enforcement by the Ministry of Environment would help ensure compliance with the Ministry's air emission and waste disposal standards.

(4)Regulatory Options:

(a)Ministry of Environment:

In his report of April 16, 1998, the City Solicitor indicates that the Ministry of Environment is currently consulting with the public on the environmental impacts of waste oil heaters through the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. To date, businesses burning waste oil as fuel in heaters require a Certificate of Approval for air emissions if the waste oil exceeds Ministry specified criteria. The Ministry has proposed revisions to its waste regulations that could exempt businesses that burn waste oils in heaters from the Certificate of Approval process altogether.

The failure of 87 percent of waste oil heaters in Ontario to meet their air emissions requirements indicates that the current process may not adequately protect human health or the environment. The deregulated process proposed by the Ministry will not improve the situation. The Ministry should eliminate the burning of waste oil in space heaters by ensuring that new units are not approved and by sunsetting existing ones.

In addition, given that the fate of 30 percent of the waste oil is unaccounted for, it is recommended that the Ministry implement a mandatory collection program that builds upon the current voluntary program and requires retailers to take back waste oil for re-refining.

(b)Municipal Options:

Regulatory measures by the City of Toronto may be the more effective local option. The report from the City Solicitor ( April 16, 1998) reviews three options that have been suggested regarding the City's ability to ban or grandfather the operation of space heaters, including the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the regulation of heating appliances through section 210 of the Municipal Act, and the use of the licensing provisions contained in section 257 of the Municipal Act.

The Health Protection and Promotion Act would require that the Medical Officer of Health issue orders on an individual basis that would declare each heating unit a health hazard. The Municipal Act options would require a legal strategy that addresses the issue of conflict with the Environmental Protection Act. The City Solicitor has indicated that there is less chance of duplicating some aspect of the Environmental Protection Act if the municipality uses section 210 to regulate waste oil heaters as a class of heating appliances, than if it attempts to use section 257 to license the burning of waste oil. The City Solicitor could also examine the general health and safety provisions contained in section 102 of the Municipal Act.

The report from the City Solicitor also describes an option based on the utilization of land use regulations under the Planning Act. His report refers to the 1996 decision of the former City of Toronto Council which used the Planning Act to enact a land use by-law that prohibited incineration of waste within the former City of Toronto. Under that by-law, waste oil fuel would be considered waste not to be incinerated. The incineration by-law remains in abeyance at the Ontario Municipal Board. However, a legal option under the Planning Act merits further investigation. The City Solicitor could consider applying the land use regulation approach under the Planning Act to develop a by-law that deals specifically with the burning of waste oil.

It is therefore recommended that the City Solicitor further investigate options to eliminate waste oil used in space heaters, including options under the Municipal Act and the Planning Act. In the interim, the Ministry of Environment should be requested to provide copies of inspection and/or sampling reports on the 47 units operating in Toronto so staff in Public Health can begin the process of identifying any units that are not in compliance with the Ministry's regulatory requirements.

Conclusions:

Air quality in Toronto has deteriorated to a level that is adversely affecting human health and the environment. Children, pregnant women, and those with respiratory diseases are particularly susceptible. Burning waste oil is an unnecessary additional contribution to air pollution in the City and should be discontinued as a matter of public health and environmental policy.

The Ministry of Environment, in announcing its hold on the approval of new small space heaters that burn waste oil, also referred to its current review of provincial air quality standards. Many of these air standards are based on human health considerations, and Public Health authorities should be consulted in their development. It is therefore recommended that the Ministry of Environment be requested to consult medical officers of health across Ontario in the review of air quality standards.

Contact Names:

Kim Perrotta, Environmental Epidemiologist, Environmental Protection Office, Toronto Public Health, Tel: (416) 392-6788, Fax: (416) 392-7418.

Franca Ursitti, Research Consultant, Environmental Protection Office, Toronto Public Health,

Tel: (416) 392-6788, Fax: (416) 392-7418.

References:

Burnett et al., (1995) Association between Ambient Particulate Sulfate and Admissions to Ontario Hospitals for Cardiac and Respiratory Disease. American Journal of Epidemiology. 142:15-22.

City of Toronto, Department of Public Health (1993) Outdoor Air Quality: Issues and Concerns.

City of Toronto, Department of Public Health (1996) Outdoor Air Quality and Respiratory Health

Ozkaynak, et al., (1996) "Associations between daily mortality and air pollution in Toronto, Canada", August 1995. Proceedings of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. In Outdoor Air and Your Health, Health Canada, March .

Steib, D. and Burnett, R., (1993) SOLEC Summary Paper: Respiratory Health Effects of Air Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. September.

Thurston et al., (1994) "Respiratory Hospital Admissions and Summertime Haze Air Pollution in Toronto, Ontario: Consideration of the Role of Acid Aerosols". Environmental Research. 65:271-290.

Winfield M. (1998) Hazardous Waste Management in Ontario: A Report and Recommendations. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. 225pp.

Table 1Fate of Waste Oil in Ontario

Source: Winfield, 1998)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 11, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee:

Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence from a meeting that took place on Monday, May 11, 1998, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

It was a special Works and Utilities Committee meeting, and the Clerk had an indication from the Members that there would be quorum.

I would like to mention that I am particularly disappointed by Councillor Shiner, who indicated he would be at the meeting and never showed up.

Having no quorum with only four members present at 9:45 a.m., we proceeded, as interested Members of Council, to hear deputations.

Please find attached:

(1)list of Committee Members present;

(2)list of deputations;

(3)report dated May 7, 1998, from the Medical Officer of Health; and

(4)all communications pertaining to the issue.

Thank you for your consideration.)

(A copy of the documentation, appended to 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 submissions:

-from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber, submitting a communication (May 4, 1998) from Pollution Probe, together with background material and newspaper articles respecting the burning of used oil;

-(May12, 1998) from Ms. Karen Buck, expressing concern with Toronto's air quality and its effect on residents; and submitting recommendations with respect thereto; and

-(May 12, 1998) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber, submitting a proposed by-law to prohibit the use of used motor oil for space heating by or in businesses in the City of Toronto.)

2

Consulting Services - Construction Supervision and

Administration, Western Beaches Storage Tunnel

(Trinity-Niagara, High Park)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities recommends the adoption of the reports dated April 9, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(1)arrange a briefing on the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel project for Members of the Committee, prior to the meeting of Council scheduled for May 13, 1998, and that the Ward Councillors for the area, Councillors Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, Pantalone and Silva, and other Members of Council be invited to attend; and

(2)provide confirmation on the agreements with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Toronto Harbour Commission for the disposal of excavated shale, directly to Council for consideration with this matter.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (April9, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to amend the consultant agreement dated July 5, 1996, with CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. to include detailed design reviews and construction supervision/administration for Phase I of the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the total amount of $38.5 million for engineering services and construction of Phase I of the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel has been previously approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto, and is available in Accounts Nos. 295480-39220-76000-295480 and 217713-39220-76000-217713 of the former City of Toronto. A contract for the amount of $32.0 million for the design/build of Phase I of the project has been awarded and the amount of $970,000.00 for detailed design reviews and construction supervision/administration for Phase I of the project has been provided for within the approved budget of $38.5 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the terms of reference of the consulting agreement dated July 5, 1996, for the preparation of the preliminary design and tender documents for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel be amended to include reviews of detailed design calculations and drawings prepared by the design/build contractor, and the construction supervision and construction administration of the tunnel project;

(2)the total consulting fee of $811,759.20, including GST, provided for in the consulting agreement dated July 5, 1996, and in the amending consulting agreement dated December 18, 1997, with CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. be increased by $970,000.00 to $1,781,759.20, including GST; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of July 5, 1996, in considering Communication No. 59 from the Board of Management, approved the engagement of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. to provide engineering consulting services for the preliminary design, preparation of a design/build proposed call and assistance in the pre-qualifications and tender process for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel (WBST) project at a cost of $727,229.20, including GST.

Subsequently, the Board of Management of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of December11, 1997 (Minute No. 2.6) approved amending the terms of reference of the engineering assignment to increase the consulting fees by $84,530.00 to $811,759.20, including GST, to allow for the preparation and evaluation of a revised predesign and design/build Request for Proposals.

Furthermore, the Board of Management at its meeting of December 18, 1997, in considering the report dated December 17, 1997, from the City Engineer, approved, inter alia, the award of PhaseI of the design/build project at a cost of $32.0 million to the McNally-Frontier Joint Venture.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The purpose of the WBST, located generally south of Lake Shore Boulevard West between Strachan Avenue and Parkside Drive, is to intercept and store, during periods of rainfall, polluted sewer discharges to Lake Ontario from the City's combined sewer system for subsequent treatment before release to the lake. Intercepting and treating the polluted sewer discharges will improve the water quality along the western waterfront and substantially reduce the postings of the beaches as unsuitable for bathing and swimming during the summer season. The total cost for Phase I and Phase II of the project as quoted by the successful contractor amounts to $49.3 million. As indicated above, PhaseI of the project has been awarded at a contract price of $32.0 million, and the contractor has commenced preparation of the detailed design and mobilization for construction at the Battery Park construction site.

The WBST project is a design/build contract and during the entire construction period of approximately 30 months, the City, as the owner, must undertake:

-reviews and approvals of detailed engineering design calculations and design/shop drawings prepared by the contractor;

-construction supervision, e.g., inspection to ensure that the constructed work meets the specified and approved standards, performance specifications, and design drawings; and

-construction administration, e.g., review and approval of progress claims and change orders.

To carry out these tasks, the City requires the assistance of consulting engineers and the estimated engineering fees (including GST) for this work are as follows:

Phase IPhase IITotal (Including GST)

Design Reviews$360,000.00$140,000.00$500,000.00

Construction Administration$180,000.00$120,000.00$300,000.00

Construction Supervision$430,000.00$270,000.00$700,000.00

Total (incl. GST)$970,000.00$530,000.00$1,500,000.00

The above services are to be paid on the basis of time plus expenses because the scope of work for design reviews, contract supervision and administration depends on the construction schedule and construction progress, difficulties encountered during design/construction and contractor's performance.

The cost estimate for the above engineering services are considered appropriate for a project of the magnitude and of the complexity of the WBST.

As indicated above, the Council of the former City of Toronto has approved funding for Phase I of the WBST, and at this time authorization is requested to engage consulting engineers for detailed design reviews and construction supervision/administration for Phase I of the project. Funding for Phase II of the WBST will be requested as part of the 1999 Capital Budget submission, and approval for extending the consulting agreement to provide engineering services for Phase II will be requested at that time.

As indicated above, the consulting firms of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. have been engaged by the City to prepare the preliminary design, the Request for Proposals (RFP) and have carried out the evaluation of the proposals submitted by the bidders. In order to maintain continuity with respect to engineering services for this project, it is recommended that the consulting engagement of these firms be extended to include the review of detailed design calculations and drawings and construction supervision/administration. Specifically, the reasons for continuing their engagement are as follows:

(1) CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. were selected to undertake the preliminary design, preparation of the design/build RFP and evaluation of contractor proposals as the result of a (competitive) proposal call. There were six consultants involved in the proposal call and the joint venture of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. achieved the highest overall ranking.

(2) The WBST project is a design/build project and therefore the detailed design calculations and drawings are being prepared by the contractor's engineer. (McNally-Frontier Joint Venture has engaged Acres International Consulting Engineers to carry out the detailed design work.) However, it is essential that the detailed design calculations and drawings are being reviewed by the City's consultants to ensure that the performance specifications and standards stipulated in the proposal call are being met. Because CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. have prepared the engineering and construction requirements for the City, including the performance specifications and standards, they have a detailed knowledge of the project and of the City's requirements. Therefore, they can best assist the City in the review of design calculations and design/shop drawings.

Furthermore, construction supervision and administration for the WBST requires special expertise in deep tunnel construction not available within the Works and Emergency Services Department. The above consulting firms have the experience and expertise in deep tunnel construction and because of their previous involvement and detailed knowledge of the project, they are best suited to undertake the construction supervision and administration on behalf of the City.

(3) The design/build contract for the WBST is in progress, and the engagement of another consulting engineer would result in a significant time delay as such consultant would have to familiarize himself/herself with the project, e.g., the City's requirements, specifications, approval process, and the design/build agreement provisions, etc. A delay in the WBST project would result in increased contract cost and potential loss of funding under the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works Program.

(4) As per requirement in the consulting agreement, CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consulting Inc. have provided Professional Liability Insurance for their design services related to the preliminary design and preparation of standards, performance specifications and tender documents. If another consultant is engaged to carry out the detailed design reviews and construction supervision/administration, the City's protection provided by the Professional Liability Insurance will be jeopardized.

(5) As indicated above, the total cost of the engineering services related to design reviews and construction supervision/administration are dependent on the construction schedule, construction progress, difficulties encountered during design/construction and contractor's performance. Therefore, these services are to be paid on the basis of time plus expenses and do not lend themselves to the calling of competitive bids.

(6) It is accepted practice and the recommendation of the engineering and consulting profession that the engineer who prepares the design and the contract specifications also assists the owner in contract administration and supervision. This is necessary because the engineer who prepared the design has a detailed knowledge of the project, and because there are invariably design changes and changes to specifications necessary during the course of (large) construction projects which must be reviewed and approved by the designer.

The assignment shall be performed in accordance with amendments to the consultant agreement dated July 5, 1996, and the amending agreement dated December 18, 1997, with CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

Conclusions:

The consulting firms of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. have been selected by the City to undertake the preliminary design and preparation of design/build tender documents based on a (competitive) proposal call. Because they have prepared the preliminary design and the design/build tender document, they have a detailed knowledge of the project. Therefore, these consultants will provide seamless continuation of engineering services for the WBST to the City, and are best suited to undertake the detailed design reviews and the construction supervision and administration for the City.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Werner Wichmann, P.Eng., City Engineer, City of Toronto, 392-7703

--------

Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a submission with respect thereto.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide confirmation that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) have agreed to accept excavation material from the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel (WBST) at the Leslie Spit Lakefill Facility.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History

The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of April 22, 1998, in considering our report dated April 9, 1998, entitled "Consulting Services - Construction Supervision and Administration, Western Beaches Storage Tunnel" requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provide confirmation directly to City Council that the TRCA and the THC have agreed to accept excavation material from the WBST at the Leslie Street Spit Lakefill Facility.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Detailed and extensive testing of the quality of shale rock and of the over burden (soil above rock) along the tunnel alignment has been undertaken and the soil quality data has been provided to the TRCA and the THC with our application for disposal of the excavation material at the Leslie Street Spit Lakefill Site.

The TRCA by letter dated March 17, 1997 (Appendix 'A') has confirmed that excavation material from the tunnel is acceptable for open water lakefill disposal at the Leslie Street Spit with the exception of material from two boreholes located in the vicinity of Coronation Park and Battery Park. The over burden at these locations consists of fill and is not suitable for lakefill. The tunnel project alternative, which has been accepted under the design/build proposal call, terminates at Battery Park and, therefore, excavation at Coronation Park is no longer proposed. The over burden material from the shaft area at Battery Park, which is a relatively small portion of the total excavation material (less than 4 percent), will be disposed of at an approved landfill site. The majority of the excavation material consists of shale rock which has been approved for lakefill and can be disposed of at the Leslie Street Site or any other approved lakefill site.

The THC by letter dated February 11, 1997 (Appendix 'B') confirmed their acceptance of excavation material from the tunnel project at the Leslie Street Lakefill Facility. It is noted that Mr. K.A. Lundy, P.Eng., Manager of Works and Chief Engineer of the THC has confirmed (telephone conversation of May 4, 1998 with Mr. W. Wichmann, City Engineer) that conditions at Leslie Street Lakefill Facility have not changed and the THC will be accepting qualifying material from the tunnel project for disposal at the Leslie Street Site.

Conclusions:

The majority of the excavation material from the WBST project is of quality acceptable for lakefill.

Appropriate arrangements have been made with the THC and the TRCA for the disposal of qualifying excavation material from the WBST project at the Leslie Street Lakefill Facility.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W. Wichmann, City Engineer, Former City of Toronto, Toronto Community Council Area,

Phone (416) 392-7703, Fax (416) 392-0816, E-Mail "wwichman@city.toronto.on.ca")

(A copy of each of Appendices A and B, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Cogeneration Facility, Humber Treatment Plant -

Contract No. WPC-11-97

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. WPC-11-97 for the installation of previously purchased new gas engines and air blowers including all associated electrical and mechanical work for the cogeneration project at the Humber Treatment Plant.

Funding Sources:

On August 12, 1992, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 17 of Report No. 17 of The Works Committee, approving funding for the cogeneration project at the Humber Treatment Plant. Financing for the cogeneration project was previously approved, and funds are available in the Water Pollution Control Capital Account No. C-WP115, Humber Treatment Plant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. WPC-11-97, for the installation of previously purchased new gas engine generation units and electric air blowers including all associated electrical and mechanical work for the cogeneration project at the Humber Treatment Plant, be awarded to Comstock Canada Ltd., for the Total Lump Sum Price of $16,798,000.00 including the Goods and Services Tax and a Schedule of Prices Allowance of $22,860.00 for potential additional work; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On March 19, 1998, the City Clerk's Office of the Corporate Services Department opened the following tenders for Contract No. WPC-11-97:

*Tenderers Nos. 3 and 1 made arithmetical errors in the Schedule of Prices. As per the terms of the tender documents, the amounts for both the Schedule of Prices and the Total Lump Sum Price have been adjusted accordingly.

Representatives of this Department and our consultants have met and reviewed the tender with the lowest tenderer, Comstock Canada Ltd. (Comstock). Clarification was required on some technical aspects of the tender submission by Comstock. Comstock subsequently submitted additional information and clarification respecting the said tender, in writing, which satisfies the Works and Emergency Services and Legal Departments that all requirements of the tender documents have been met. We are satisfied that this company has the capability to carry out the work as specified. Comstock has successfully completed other work for the Department in the past.

This contract was originally tendered in July/August 1997, at which time only one tender was received in the amount of $21,763,800.00. This amount was approximately 40 percent over the pre-tender estimate which was primarily attributed to unfavourable market conditions created by a very high volume of tendering activity at that time. As a result, staff recommended that the contract not be awarded at that time, that the scope of work be reviewed and adjusted, and that the contract be retendered at a later date under more favourable market conditions. By adoption of Clause No. 13 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space Committee on September 24, 1997, Metropolitan Council approved the retendering of the project. The scope of work was subsequently reviewed, split into two contracts and retendered. This action has resulted in an overall reduction of $4,236,934.00 in the tendered value for the installation contract, and brings the overall cost of the cogeneration project within the amounts budgeted in the Capital Works Program.

The Fair Wage Office has advised that Comstock and their named subcontractors maintain wage rates, working conditions, and collective agreements conforming to City of Toronto requirements.

The Commissioner of Finance has approved the proposed bonding company.

Comments and Justification:

This contract is the last of a four-part project, the other three being: (a) the supply of new air blowers; (b) the supply of new gas engine generation units; and (c) the construction of an electrical substation building and associated buried electrical concrete encased duct banks all required for the cogeneration project. The supply of new electric air blowers under Contract No. WPC-9-94 and new reciprocating gas engine generation units under Contract No. WPC-10-94 were awarded by Metropolitan Council on April 5, 1995, by adoption of Clause No. 22 and Clause No. 21, respectively, of Report No. 5 of TheEnvironment and Public Space Committee. The construction of the electrical substation building and associated duct banks under Contract No. WPC-10-97 is expected to be awarded in April1998 by the newly established Bid Committee. The contract award values for the air blowers, the cogeneration units, and the electrical substation building are $2,576,913.00, $13,197,038.00, and $728,866.00, respectively. The air blowers and cogeneration equipment have been delivered and are currently in storage awaiting to be installed under this current installation contract, No. WPC-11-97.

The project, as a whole, is required to upgrade/modify the existing cogeneration plant replacing aged equipment in service since 1958, and to utilize increased digester gas production for supplying electrical and heat energy and process air for sewage treatment purposes.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that Contract No. WPC-11-97 should be awarded to Comstock Canada Ltd. for the installation of new gas engine generation units and electric air blowers including all associated electrical and mechanical work for the cogeneration project at the Humber Treatment Plant.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. A. Pagnanelli, P.Eng., Senior Project Engineer, Management & Technical Services Division

Phone No.: (416) 392-8854; Fax No.: (416) 392-4594

E-mail: anthony_pagnanelli@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

4

Water Main Cleaning and Cement Lining at

Various Locations in the Etobicoke District -

Contracts Nos. EB9801WS and EB9802WS

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following reports (April9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. EB9801WS for water main cleaning and cement lining in the Etobicoke District.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This project is included in the 1998 Capital Budget for the Water and Wastewater Program and award is subject to Council approval of this budget. Funding approval was also given by the former City of Etobicoke under their 1998 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. EB9801WS for water main cleaning and cement lining at various locations in the Etobicoke District be awarded to Cormar Contracting Ltd. for the total tendered price of $2,383,404.14 including the Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March 18, 1998, the Clerk's Division of the Corporate Services Department opened the following tenders for Contract No. EB9801WS:

Tenderers Nos. 4, 6 and 7 made minor arithmetic errors and corrections have been made according to the terms of the tender documents, to arrive at their respective total prices as outlined above.

This tender is a unit price tender and in reviewing the Form of Tender submitted by the lowest bidder, Fer-Pal Construction Ltd., representatives of this Department found gross unbalancing of certain tender items. In the tender documents, it is specified that a tender containing unbalanced prices which likely affect adversely the interest of the City may be rejected.

Unbalanced bidding is exemplified in the lowest tenderer's bid for unshrinkable backfill (tender item2a, estimated quantity 4000 m3) at $1.00 per m3, whereas the average bid of the next two low tenderers is $42.00 per m3 (City's estimate, $45.00 per m3). For another form of backfill using granular material (tender item 2b, estimated quantity 900 m3), the lowest tenderer's bid is $43.00 perm3, whereas the average bid for the next two low tenderers is $23.50 per m3 (City's estimate, $43.00 per m3).

Other examples include:

(a)clear water service (tender item 14, estimated quantity 25 units): lowest tenderer's bid, $1.00 per unit; average bid of next two low tenderers is $450.00 per unit (City's estimate, $500.00 per unit);

(b)repair curb box and rod (tender item 18, estimated quantity 550 units): lowest tenderer's bid, $1.00per unit; average bid of next two low tenderers, $290.00 per unit (City's estimate, $250.00 per unit); and

(c)repair curb box and rod by excavation (tender item 19, estimated quantity 40 units): lowest tenderer's bid, $1.00 per unit; average bid of next two low tenderers, $450.00 per unit (City's estimate, $800.00 per unit).

Furthermore, the same has been thoroughly reviewed by staff and they concur with the solicitors' opinion, and in addition, given the nature of public tendering process and that there will be no change in the scope of the work for retendering purposes, recommend that the tender be awarded to the second lowest tenderer, Cormar Contracting Ltd.

Both Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. and Cormar Contracting Ltd. have worked in Etobicoke on this type of work, and we are satisfied that either company has the capabilities to carry out the work as specified. The tender deposit cheques for the above two companies are still being held.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This contract is the first phase of the proposed 1998 program to clean and line approximately 45kilometres of existing cast iron water mains within the Etobicoke District. The project is the continuation of a long-term plan to rehabilitate the City's water distribution system to provide the highest quality of potable water and improve water supply especially for fire flow purposes, all by removing the rust tubercles from the interior walls of the water main pipe and reline with cement mortar. The plan is in accordance with the 1986 Report on the City of Etobicoke Water Distribution System and adopted by the former City of Etobicoke Council.

In Contract No. EB9801WS, the water mains to be cleaned and lined are generally in five areas as follow:

Area 1:Long Branch area south of Lake Shore Boulevard (included) from 23rd Street to 25thStreet (included) and from 33rd Street to 36th Street.

Area 2:South of Q.E.W. and west of Royal York Road north of Hay Avenue (included) and east of Ourland Avenue.

Area 3:West of Royal York Road, north of Norseman Street and also bounded by Leamington Avenue and Fernalroy Boulevard (included).

Area 4:West of Mimico Creek, north of Van Dusen Boulevard, east of Islington Avenue and south of Bloor Street including these streets.

Area 5:Bounded by but not including Prince Edward Drive, The Kingsway and Royal York Road and Bloor Street (included).

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. EB9801WS be awarded to Cormar Contracting Ltd. for water main cleaning and cement lining at various locations within the City of Toronto, Etobicoke District.

Contact Name:

Mr. T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng., Telephone No.: 416-394-8399, Fax No.: 416-394-8942

--------

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. EB9802WS for water main cleaning and cement lining in the Etobicoke District.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This project is included in the 1998 Capital Budget for the Water and Wastewater Program and award is subject to Council approval of this budget. Funding approval was also given by the former City of Etobicoke under the Etobicoke 1998 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. EB9802WS for water main cleaning and cement lining at various locations in the Etobicoke District be awarded to Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd. for the total tendered price of $2,458,330.35 including Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 1, 1998, the Clerk's Division of the Corporate Services Department opened the following tenders for Contract EB9802WS:

Tenderer No. 5 made minor arithmetic errors and corrections have been made according to the terms of the tender documents, to arrive at the total price as outlined above.

This tender is a unit price tender and in reviewing the Form of Tender submitted by the lowest bidder, Fer-Pal Construction Ltd., representatives of this Department found gross unbalancing of certain tender items. In the tender documents, it is specified that a tender containing unbalanced prices which likely affect adversely the interest of the City may be rejected.

Unbalanced bidding is exemplified in the lowest tenderer's bid for unshrinkable backfill (tender item2a, estimated quantity 4000 m3) at $1.00 per m3, whereas the average bid of the next two low tenderers is $42.00 per m3 (City's estimate, $45.00 per m3). For another form of backfill using granular material (tender item 2b, estimated quantity 900 m3), the lowest tenderer's bid is $43.00 per m3, whereas the average bid for the next two low tenderers is $23.50 per m3 (City's estimate, $43.00 per m3).

Other examples include:

(a)clear water service (tender item 14, estimated quantity 25 units): lowest tenderer's bid, $1.00 per unit; average bid of next two low tenderers, $450.00 per unit (City's estimate, $500.00 per unit);

(b)repair curb box and rod (tender item 18, estimated quantity 550 units): lowest tenderer's bid, $1.00 per unit; average bid of next two low tenderers is $290.00 per unit (City's estimate, $250.00 per unit); and

(c)repair curb box and rod by excavation (tender item 19, estimated quantity 40 units): lowest tenderer's bid, $1.00 per unit; average bid of next two low tenderers, $450.00 per unit (City's estimate, $800.00 per unit).

Furthermore, the same has been thoroughly reviewed by staff and they concur with the solicitors' opinion, and, in addition, given the nature of public tendering process and that there will be no change in the scope of the work for retendering purposes, recommend that the tender be awarded to the second lowest tenderer, Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd.

Both Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. and Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd. have worked in Etobicoke on this type of work, and we are satisfied that either company has the capabilities to carry out the work as specified. The tender deposit cheques for the above two companies are still being held.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This contract is the first phase of the proposed 1998 program to clean and line approximately 45kilometres of existing cast iron water mains within the Etobicoke District. The project is the continuation of a long-term plan to rehabilitate the City's water distribution system to provide the highest quality of potable water and improve water supply especially for fire flow purposes, all by removing the rust tubercles from the interior walls of the water main pipe and reline with cement mortar. The plan is in accordance with the 1986 Report on the City of Etobicoke Water Distribution System and adopted by the former City of Etobicoke Council.

In Contract No. EB9802WS, the water mains to be cleaned and lined are generally in seven areas as follow:

Area 1:West of Martin Grove Road and south of Royalcrest Road and north of Albion Creek.

Area 2:Bounded by but not including Martin Grove Road, Mercury Road, Kearney Drive and Jeffcoat Drive.

Area 3:Bounded by but not including Kipling Avenue, The Westway and Brampton Road, and Sunvale Drive (included).

Area 4:Bounded by but not including Princess Margaret Boulevard, Kipling Avenue, TheKingsway and Sir Williams Lane.

Area 5:Bounded by but not including Rathburn Road and Haliburton Avenue and the Mimico Creek.

Area 6:Bounded by but not including Martin Grove Road, Burnhamthorpe Road and Cowley Avenue and Warwood Road (included).

Area 7:West of the The West Mall, north of Bloor Street to Crendon Drive, various streets off Renforth Drive (included).

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. EB9801WS be awarded to Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd. for watermain cleaning and cement lining at various locations within the City of Toronto, Etobicoke District.

Contact Name:

Mr. T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng., Telephone No.: 416-394-8399, Fax No.: 416-394-8942

--------

(A copy of the communications from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Barristers and Solicitors, appended to each of the foregoing reports has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of April 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 7 1998) from the City Clerk:

At its meeting held on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a communication (April 29, 1998) from Councillor Disero, referring correspondence (April27,1998) from the President and Vice-President, Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. respecting the decision of the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to tenders.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also had before it a communication (April 30, 1998) from the City Clerk advising of the action taken by the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to the award of Contracts Nos. EB9801WS and EB9802WS for watermain cleaning and cement lining at various locations in the Etobicoke District.

Mr. Shaun McKaigue of Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its meeting held on May 5, 1998.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports that it:

(1)received the communication (April 29, 1998) from Councillor Disero together with the correspondence (April 29, 1998) from Fer-Pal Construction Ltd.;

(2)received the communication (April 30, 1998) from the City Clerk; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the appropriate staff, to review the tendering process and documentation used throughout the Corporation with a view to providing for a more open process in the future.)

(A copy of the following documentation, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)communication (April 29, 1998) from Councillor Disero, Davenport, forwarding correspondence dated April 27, 1998, from the President and Vice-President, Fer-Pal Construction Ltd.; and

(ii)communication (April 30, 1998) from the City Clerk.)

5

Cleaning and Cement Mortar Relining of

Existing Water Mains, Scarborough District -

Contract No. 11-98, Phase 1

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. 11-98 for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of existing cast iron water mains throughout various locations within the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

Funding Sources:

Award is subject to funding approval under the 1998 Capital Budget for water main rehabilitation.

Funds are available in the 1998 Capital Budget under the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission and included in the Water and Wastewater Progam for 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. 11-98, for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of cast iron water mains in the Scarborough District, be awarded to New Tide Investments Limited, for the Total Price of $1,516,747.47 including the Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On March 26, 1998, the Commission Secretaries Office of the Corporate Support Division, Scarborough Office, opened the following tenders for Contract No. 11-98:

Representatives of the Scarborough District Water Construction and Maintenance Department have reviewed the low bid tender submitted by New Tide Investments. We are satisfied that this company has met the contractual requirements as set out in the tender document and has the capability to carry out the work as specified.

Comments and Justification:

This project is the first of three phases for the water main rehabilitation of existing cast iron water mains within the Scarborough District for the 1998 fiscal year. All three phases will consist of approximately 16 kms of water main to be cleaned and cement lined. This tender is for the general area bounded by St. Clair, Midland, Eglinton and Birchmount Avenues.

As in the past, the work is required in order to provide the residents of the City of Toronto, Scarborough District, with the highest quality of drinking water, by eliminating rust tubercles from the interior walls of the water main system. Moreover, pressure and fire flows are improved as a result of this work.

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. 11-98 should be awarded to New Tide Investments Ltd. for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of existing cast iron water mains at various locations within the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

Contact Name and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Martin Bugden, Manager, Water Construction and Maintenance Department

Phone No.: (416) 285-2002

Mr. Louie Magurno, C.E.T., Contract Administrator

Phone No.: (416) 285-2012

6

Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining of

Existing Water Mains, North York District -

Contract No. NY9880WS

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. NY9880WS for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of existing cast and ductile iron water mains throughout various locations within the City of Toronto, North York District.

Funding Sources:

Award is subject to funding approval under the 1998 Capital Budget for water main rehabilitation.

Funds are available in the 1998 Capital Budget under the former City of North York and included in the Water and Wastewater Program for 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. NY9880WS, for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of cast and ductile iron water mains in the North York District, be awarded to Cormar Contracting Ltd., for the Total Price of $1,288,396.63 including the Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On April 8, 1998, the Director of Purchasing, Purchasing Section, Finance Department, City of Toronto, North York Civic Centre, opened the following tenders for Contract No. NY9880WS:

Representatives of the Works and Emergency Services Department have reviewed the low bid tender submitted by Cormar Contracting Ltd. We are satisfied that this company has met the contractual requirements as set out in the tender document and has the capability to carry out the work as specified.

Comments and Justification:

This project is the first of two phases for the water main rehabilitation of existing cast and ductile iron water mains within the North York District for the 1998 fiscal year. Both phases will total approximately 25 kms of water mains to be cleaned and cement lined. This tender is for the following areas:

Section "A" - Area bounded by Glen Belle Crescent, Highland Hill, Dane Avenue and Dufferin Street.

Section "B" -Area bounded by Ridgevale Drive, Bathurst Street, Kirkland Boulevard, and Lynnhaven Road.

Section "C" -Hatherton Crescent, Averdon Crescent, Daleena Drive and Royal Doulton Drive.

As in the past, the work is required in order to provide the residents of the City of Toronto, North York District, with the highest quality of drinking water, by eliminating rust tubercles from the interior walls of the water main system. Moreover, pressure and fire flows are improved as a result of this work.

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. NY9880WS should be awarded to Cormar Contracting Ltd. for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of existing cast iron water mains at various locations within the City of Toronto, North York District.

Contact Name and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Mario Crognale, P. Eng., Director of Water and Sewer Operations

Phone No.: (416) 395-6219

Mr. Jack Graziosi, P. Eng., Works Engineer

Phone No.: (416) 395-6218

7

Procedures for Retendering Existing Contracts for Waste

Collection, and Provision for In-House Opportunity

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated April9, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on June 17, 1998, providing a comparison of costs for both curbside and bulk lift waste collection in the former municipalities.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (April 9, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To advise your Committee on the status of all outstanding contracts for waste collection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The method of service delivery could influence the City's future operating costs for waste collection services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the tender schedule shown in Table 2 be forwarded to the sub-committee of the Works and Utilities Committee for its consideration;

(2) authorization be given to call tenders for all waste collection contracts which expire in 1998 and 1999, excluding the Toronto and York bulk lift contracts, as shown in Table 2 of this report; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Your Committee, at its special meeting of March 2, 1998, in considering the report of the Works and Emergency Services Department (February 2, 1998) entitled "Extension of Contract No. 50130 - Provision of Bulk Lift Garbage and Recycling Collection Services - Toronto and York Community Council Areas":

"established a sub-committee of Councillors Altobello, Disero and Layton to work with staff and the Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, regarding a strategy for tendering other contracts, and to explore the means by which the provision of bulk lift waste collection would be organized if it were handled in-house, and to submit a report thereon to the Committee."

To assist in reviewing the potential for carrying out collection work on an in-house basis, it is necessary to review the expiry dates of all existing waste collection contracts and the lead time for retendering and potential collection equipment acquisition.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Existing Waste Collection Contracts:

Table 1 shows all of the existing waste collection contracts (bulk lift and curbside) currently in place in the City, their expiry dates and their cost in 1997, including 7 percent GST.

As can be seen from Table 1, eight contracts costing $4,802,928.00 per year expire in 1998 and 1999, three contracts costing $4,865,668.00 per year expire in 2000, and one contract costing $1,255,451.00 per year expires in 2001.

Lead Time for Contract Tendering and Equipment Acquisition:

Based on the City's normal tendering process, which includes identification of vehicle specifications which will satisfy the City's health and safety requirements, the lead time for purchase of new or used collection vehicles by the City is approximately one year. Therefore, where additional City collection equipment may be required, tenders should be called such that there is a one-year period following tender award or a decision to carry out the service on an in-house basis. This will allow the City to purchase the necessary collection equipment and make necessary budget adjustments, if it is decided that the City should carry out the work. Where a decision is made to carry out work on an in-house basis and purchase equipment, it will be necessary for City Council to make a prior financial commitment outside the budget process, guaranteeing that funds will be allocated for the purchase of collection equipment at the time of delivery of the equipment.

For small and medium-sized contracts, contractors may have access to collection equipment at relatively short notice and competitive tenders can be called with a shorter lead time than one year prior to the start of work, if it is decided in advance not to carry out the work on an in-house basis.

Time Required for Discussions with CUPE Local 416:

If discussions are to take place with CUPE Local 416 regarding the possibility of bringing existing contracted waste collection work in-house, it is necessary to allow sufficient time for such discussions to take place and subsequently obtain a City Council decision with respect to each contract, and then allow time for tendering the contract and a one-year period between tender award and the start of work to allow for the purchase of collection vehicles by the city if applicable. From a practical point of view, it is unlikely that such negotiations could be completed, a Council decision made with respect to how to proceed with the work, and tendering and award of any related contract, and/or arrangements made for vehicle purchase before the end of 1998. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Therefore, consideration for bringing collection work in-house should only apply to waste collection contracts which expire after December 31, 1999. It is noted that the lead time for equipment replacement for the existing East York, York, Scarborough and North York Community Council areas waste collection contracts which expire in 1998 and 1999 is sufficient to call competitive tenders, but insufficient to obtain collection equipment if it is decided to bring the collection work in-house.

Conclusions:

All contracts which expire in 1998 and 1999 should be retendered, other than the Toronto and York bulk lift contracts, which have already been extended for three years, and the Scarborough curbside contract, which is being extended for one year and which should be retendered in early 1999. Contracts which expire after December 31, 1999, should be retendered in conjunction with a review process with CUPE Local 416.

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@toronto.city.on.ca"

Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland-Centennial, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of Figure 1 referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of April 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Keele Valley Landfill Site -

Amendment to Technical Services Agreement

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April7, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To seek authority to extend the agreement between the City of Toronto and Conestoga Rovers & Associates Limited (CRA) for general consulting services, landfill gas consulting services including gas utilization and ambient air monitoring and leachate disposal, moisture recirculation, final cover, progressive rehabilitation and site closure requirements at the Keele Valley Landfill Site (KVLS).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1998-2002 Capital Works Program estimates a total budget of $16,477,000.00 for ongoing development of the KVLS under Project C-SW165. Budget approval is still outstanding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to increase the approved level of expenditure for technical services for Conestoga Rovers & Associates Limited by an amount of $246,000.00 from $2,571,000.00 to $2,817,000.00 after the Municipal Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rebate for general consulting services, landfill gas consulting services including gas utilization and ambient air monitoring, leachate disposal, moisture recirculation, final cover, progressive rehabilitation and site closure requirements at the Keele Valley Landfill Site within funding limits previously approved;

(2)the term of the agreement be extended to December 31, 1999; and

(3)the appropriate officials be authorized to amend the existing agreement between the City of Toronto and Conestoga Rovers & Associates Limited to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On October 25, 1995, Council approved Clause No. 7 of Report No. 16 of The Environment and Public Space Committee extending the agreement between the Metropolitan Corporation and CRA to April 1, 1998, and raising the limit on the approved expenditure by $881,000.00 to $2,571,000.00 after the GST rebate.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

CRA was the previous owner/operator's (Superior Crawford Ltd./Waste Management Inc.) consultant during the environmental hearings leading up to the certification of the KVLS and Avondale North borrow pit. In August 1983, the Metropolitan Corporation originally retained CRA to perform certain professional services for and in connection with the development and management of the Keele Valley Landfill Site under Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A230610.

The conditions imposed in the Provisional Certificate of Approval for the Keele Valley Landfill Site require Toronto to report to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on the manner in which the landfill is constructed, operated and maintained. CRA has been directly involved with obtaining the approvals necessary to report to the MOE in order to continue operating this landfill.

CRA was also our prime consultant for application with the MOE on the proposed expansion of the site. They have been involved with this site and the detailed development and design of the various systems, controls and operations with Metro and the previous owners since the 1970s, and their staff have over 30 collective years of work experience directly related to the site. CRA is currently in the process of resolving and finalizing with ourselves and the MOE a number of approvals including those involving moisture recirculation, leachate disposal, landfill gas control and utilization, air monitoring and progressive rehabilitation and final cover. We believe that in order to maintain continuity of the engineering design, approval and implementation of this work, we should continue to retain CRA. A new consultant would have to become completely familiar with the ongoing projects as well as the history of the site and be interjected into and agree with the ongoing dialogue presently under way with the MOE, which we believe would result in additional costs to the City, especially in view of significant ongoing design and operations developments at the site.

Due to the large size and prominence of the KVLS, the MOE has paid particularly close attention to the site's design and operation and environmental impact and control. It is the only active site in Ontario requiring ongoing approvals by the MOE. When we were originally considering consultants to provide engineering services for the KVLS, the MOE encouraged us to hire our present consultants, including CRA, because of their knowledge of the site, and the history of the site prior to our purchase. Furthermore, the MOE recognizes the existing consultants at Keele Valley as pre-eminent in their field, and they have verbally encouraged Metro to retain the same consultants. The MOE, who have similar hiring practices with respect to engaging consultants as the City, have maintained the same consulting team at the KVLS when they rehired their own third party consultant (Trow Ltd.), for all the above reasons and defended their choice before the Management Board of Cabinet, the most senior approving authority in the provincial government. We concur with the MOE's position regarding consultants at the KVLS.

Some additional reasons for continuing to retain CRA include the following:

(1)the feasibility and/or necessity of the proposed expansion has yet to be determined; there are significant cost benefits, notwithstanding the minimization of the City's staff time to educate other consultants to maintain CRA's continuity between the information contained in the expansion documents and ongoing work at the KVLS;

(2)CRA's continued involvement will allow us to maintain the established efficiency of inspections, documentation and reporting to avoid unnecessary duplication of work, which would increase consulting charges to the City and require a significant amount of our staff time being spent in assisting and educating a new consultant;

(3)it will provide consistency of design objective; and

(4)CRA has provided cost-effective project management and design services to the City; the MOE and our staff are confident and satisfied with CRA's work to date at the KVLS.

We feel that it would be in the City of Toronto's best interests to utilize CRA and ensure continuity through this time period because of the sensitivity of the issues and cost implications of effectively meeting the requirements of the Certificate of Approval, and the installation and operations of these systems will be ongoing.

All major stakeholders (in addition to the City of Toronto) involved in the approval process and development of the KVLS to date (since 1983) have remained the same. These stakeholders include key decision-makers at the MOE and the MOE's prime consultant, community members of the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee, representatives of the City of Vaughan, and others, including CRA. The MOE approval and review process for significant engineered systems and/or site operations of the KVLS is ongoing. There are unresolved issues at the KVLS and others that remain to be resolved through ongoing discussions with the MOE. By retaining the same consultant, potential disputes at any future hearings regarding responsibility between two consultants who have worked on the same project is avoided.

CRA has continuously provided excellent quality and cost-effective project management and design services to the City of Toronto.

An extension of CRA's agreement to December 31, 1999, would ensure that the City of Toronto as proponent is provided the necessary continuity required to complete the approval process and development of the KVLS in a cost-effective manner. We estimate the cost for CRA's services for this period at $246,000.00 after the GST rebate.

Conclusions:

A consultant is required for general consulting services, landfill gas consulting services including gas utilization and ambient air monitoring, leachate disposal, moisture recirculation, final cover, progressive rehabilitation and site closure at the KVLS. Extending the agreement between the City of Toronto and CRA for these services has many advantages. It is therefore recommended that the agreement between the City of Toronto and CRA for consulting services at the KVLS be extended to December 31, 1999, and that authority be granted to increase the approved level of expenditure for these consulting services by $246,000.00 after the GST rebate.

Contact Name:

Lou Ciardullo, P. Eng., Engineer - Keele Valley Landfill Site

Solid Waste Management Division

Phone: (905) 832-0682 ext. 235; Fax: (905) 832-4944

E-mail: Lou_Ciardullo@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

9

Appointments to Consultation Committees

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Councillor Disero be appointed as the representative of the Works and Utilities Committee on the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee and the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee; and

(2)Councillor Jakobek be appointed as Councillor Disero's alternate on such Committees.")

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March9, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management without recommendation, having noted that the Chair of the Committee has undertaken to contact Members of Council to determine their interest in serving on either of the Committees:

Purpose:

To request one Committee appointee to the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee and one Committee appointee to the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee.

Funding Implications:

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Recommendation:

That one member of the Works and Utilities Committee be appointed to the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee, and one member be appointed to the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services Department is engaged in regular, ongoing consultations with members of the general public, government agencies, non-government organizations, businesses and site neighbours who are concerned about current and planned Works policy and/or operations. These committees are an important link between the Department, the Toronto Council and the public.

In the past, Councillors have been appointed to a number of Works-related consultation committees.

Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee:

The Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee (SWMICC) operates as an advisory body to the Solid Waste Management Unit of the Department. Members represent a variety of interest groups related to waste management within the Toronto area, including recyclers, waste haulers, waste generators, industry affiliated groups, and consultants.

Attendance at SWMICC meetings has traditionally included the above-noted industry representatives, members of the former Metropolitan Council and the staff of the Works Department, along with any interested observers. SWMICC meetings provide a setting for the discussion of waste management issues, including potential policy changes, fee increases and planning activities.

SWMICC emerged from the public participation program for Metro's earlier Solid Waste Environmental Assessment Plan (SWEAP - 1987-1992), as a standing industry liaison committee. During the SWEAP period, the committee was active in reviewing collection costs for solid waste; solid waste management in the private sector; the Blue Box program; tipping fees at transfer stations and landfill; user pay systems; and bans on recyclable materials from landfills.

After the conclusion of the SWEAP process in 1992, SWMICC developed new Terms of Reference, which have since been updated twice to reflect its evolving mandate. The group has met regularly with senior staff of the Works Department to discuss industry concerns and ideas related to the search for long-term disposal, as well as policy formulation, implementation and enforcement matters.

According to the January 24, 1995 revision of the Terms of Reference, the purpose of the committee is "to exchange and analyze ideas on solid waste management policies and regulations among solid waste industry representatives, members of Environment and Public Space Committee (now the Works and Utilities Committee) and senior Works Department staff".

SWMICC has been an important venue for discussion between the waste management industry, staff and Council. In 1998, it is anticipated that four regular meetings will be held, commencing in March. Meetings normally take place on the second Tuesday of the month, between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Additional special meetings will be convened, if necessary.

Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee:

In 1988, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Vaughan (now the City of Vaughan) requested that Metropolitan Council appoint a member of the Metro Works Committee to sit on the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee "thus allowing for a Committee membership that encompasses a total cross-section of interests in Landfill Site matters."

The purpose of the consultation is to provide "an objective forum for the exchange of information in an open and apolitical environment." Members of this Committee include the City of Vaughan Chief Administrative Officer (Chair), the Mayor of the City of Vaughan and a local member of Council, officials from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Deputy Medical Officer of Health, members of Vaughan Citizens Association to Restore Environmental Safety (C.A.R.E.S.), other local residents, a Toronto Council representative (formerly the chair of the Metro Works Committee), Works senior staff and senior landfill operating staff. Meetings take place every six weeks between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. at the City of Vaughan municipal offices.

In order to facilitate proactive dialogue and communication, we are seeking the appointment of Members of the Works and Utilities Committee to SWMICC and the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee.

Conclusions:

Consultation committees provide a valuable opportunity for discussion among all parties involved in Toronto's waste management projects. Continuing involvement of Members of the Works and Utilities Committee on SWMICC and the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee will ensure that all stakeholders are represented at the meetings.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Tracey Ehl, Public Consultation Coordinator, Metro Hall

Phone: (416) 392-6698; Fax: (416) 392-2974

E-mail: tracey_ehl@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

10

Appointments to Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that Councillor Judy Sgro be appointed to the Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee of the Works and Utilities Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having appointed the following Members of the Committee to the Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee of the Works and Utilities Committee, the Terms of Reference for which were adopted by the Committee at its meeting on March 25, 1998:

-Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti;

-Councillor Jack Layton;

-Councillor Bill Saundercook; and

-Councillor David Shiner.

11

Charitable Waste Management Grant

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April8,1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To request that the charitable organization the Shrine Circus receive a grant by way of exemption from waste management fees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The quantity of material expected to be delivered to our Keele Valley Landfill Site from the 1998 Scarborough Shrine Circus is approximately four tonnes, which represents a potential loss in revenue of $200.00 if an exemption is granted.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Shrine Circus, a registered charitable organization, be provided with a grant by way of exemption from waste management fees otherwise payable for waste generated by the Scarborough Shrine Circus.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On January 25 and 26, 1995, the former Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 9 of Report No.1 of The Environment and Public Space Committee recommending that, subject to approval by Council, organizations registered with Revenue Canada as charities be eligible for grants by way of exemptions from waste management fees otherwise payable for source separated recyclables and residual waste from a waste diversion program.

Discussion:

We are in receipt of a letter dated March 31, 1998, from the Shrine Circus requesting an exemption from waste management fees for waste generated by the 1998 Scarborough Shrine Circus to be held from June 23 to June 28, 1998, at the Scarborough Town Centre. The Shrine Circus is an annual event that raises funds for Shrine activities in the Toronto area. The estimated quantity of waste to be generated by this event is four tonnes, with a landfill waste management fee value of $200.00. It has been confirmed by Revenue Canada that the Shrine Circus is a registered charitable organization (Registration No. R-0209700-13).

Conclusions:

Charitable organizations similar to the Shrine Circus have received grants by way of exemption of waste management fees. Based on a review of this request, we recommend that this organization be provided with a grant by way of fee exemption for waste generated by the 1998 Scarborough Shrine Circus.

Contact Name:

Kevin Vibert, Waste Management Advisor

Works and Emergency Services Department

Phone: (416) 397-0203; Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-Mail: kevin_vibert@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy of the communication referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of April 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

12

Pickering Nuclear Generating Station

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the endorsement of the resolution embodied in the following communication (February 4, 1998) from the Town Clerk, Town of Pickering; and that the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology and the Town of Pickering be advised accordingly:

Please be advised that the Council of the Town of Pickering passed the following resolution at its meeting of February 2, 1998:

WHEREAS during the 1997 Municipal Election, 86 percent of Pickering voters said "Yes" to a question asking the Government of Ontario to order an Environmental Assessment of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station; and

WHEREAS the operation of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station has an impact on all communities within the Greater Toronto Area;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Pickering hereby seeks the endorsement of all Councils within the Greater Toronto Area of Pickering's request for the Environmental Assessment; and

THAT copies of this resolution and the December Report Card on the Pickering Nuclear Station, along with a certified copy of the Question and election results, be forwarded to all Councils within the Greater Toronto Area.

If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Clerk's Department at 420-4611.

--------

Question Which Appeared on the Ballot

of the 1997 Municipal Election

Are you in favour of the Ontario Government holding a full public review under the Environmental Assessment Act of Ontario prior to any decisions being made to restart the Pickering "A" Nuclear Generating Station as well as during the continued operation of the Pickering "B" Nuclear Generating Station?

Results

Total Ballots Cast20,175

YES17,03886.93%

NO 2,56113.07%

(A copy of the December Report Card referred to in the foregoing communication has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of April 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Sanitary Discharge Agreement

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March10, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, after three months of testing, to submit a report on the test results to the Committee for information.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To allow The Glidden Company Limited to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting it to discharge from its private water system into the sanitary sewer system and pay a surcharge fee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 30 Sanitary Discharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $700,000.00 per year in treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly recover the cost of operation of our treatment plants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we be authorized to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with The Glidden Company Limited, for the discharge of treated groundwater from its private water system at 370 Wallace Avenue, Toronto, to the sanitary sewer system, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On June 24, 1980, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Works Committee, approving By-law No. 96-80, authorizing execution of agreements with industries permitting them to discharge effluent from a private water system into the Metropolitan Toronto sanitary sewer system, or any sewer system draining into the Metropolitan Toronto sanitary sewer system, under conditions of payment for treatment. Otherwise, Toronto would not receive payment for water pollution control treatment activities that are normally obtained from a surcharge on the water supplied by the public municipal system.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Golder Associates Ltd. is assisting The Glidden Company in the remediation of subsurface hydrocarbon and oil contamination at the Glidden site located at 370 Wallace Avenue.

Groundwater will be collected using vacuum enhanced recovery technology whereby a vacuum is applied to an extraction well network consisting of 36 extraction points. The collected groundwater will be transferred to an oil/water separator. The oil phase will be collected and disposed of off-site. The water phase will be treated on-site using primary and secondary granular activated carbon filters before discharging to the sanitary sewer on Wallace Avenue.

The remediation program is expected to last for a minimum of five years, and the anticipated maximum discharge into the sanitary sewer will be 23 litres per minute. Water quality monitoring will be conducted on a regular basis during the pumping operation to ensure compliance with the Metropolitan Toronto Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89.

Conclusions:

In accordance with our policy with regard to By-law No. 96-80, The Glidden Company Limited has been notified of the surcharge rate of 38.59 cents per cubic metre to be levied in 1998, and has signified agreement to the surcharge.

Contact Name:

Vic Lim, Chief Engineer

Environmental Services - Water Pollution Control

Phone: (416) 392-2966; Fax: (416) 397-0908

E-mail: victor_lim@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

14

Acceptance of Quotations for Polyelectrolytes

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April6, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Requests for Quotation for the supply and delivery of polyelectrolytes used for the dewatering of anaerobically digested sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and raw sludge at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, and for the dissolved air flotation of waste activated sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and Humber Treatment Plant for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request authority to award contracts for the quotations received which provide the most effective performance at the lowest evaluated cost.

Source of Funds:

The total estimated cost is $7,967,862.00, including Goods and Services Tax and all other charges (Ontario Retail Sales Tax Exempt), for the duration of the contract. Of this amount, $2,655,954.00 including Goods and Services Tax and all other charges (Ontario Retail Sales Tax Exempt) is provided in the 1998 Current Estimates of the Water and Sewer Division, Works and Emergency Services Department, Water Pollution Control - Treatment Account, and the balance will be provided in the 1999 and 2000 Current Estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the polyelectrolytes used for the dewatering of anaerobically digested sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and raw sludge at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, and for the dissolved air flotation of waste activated sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and Humber Treatment Plant which provide the most effective performance at the lowest evaluated cost be accepted, as follows:

Part A:Water soluble polyelectrolytes for the dewatering of anaerobically digested sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and raw sludge at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant.

Main Treatment Plant:

The polyelectrolyte submitted by Canada Flocculants Incorporated, product designation HF-171-MT at $4,610.00 per tonne, excluding all taxes.

Highland Creek Treatment Plant:

The polyelectrolyte submitted by Canada Flocculants Incorporated, product designation HF-161-MT at $4,020.00 per tonne, excluding all taxes.

Part B:Polyelectrolytes for the dissolved air flotation of waste activated sludges at the Main Treatment Plant and Humber Treatment Plant.

Main Treatment Plant:

The polyelectrolyte submitted by Allied Colloids (Canada) Incorporated, product designation DP20-14 at $4,600.00 per tonne excluding all taxes.

Humber Treatment Plant:

The polyelectrolyte submitted by Allied Colloids (Canada) Incorporated, product designation DP20-05 at $4,020.00 per tonne excluding all taxes;

(2)this report be forwarded to the next meeting of Council; and

(3)the appropriate officials be authorized to complete the necessary contract documents.

Background:

Twelve firms were invited to submit quotations; five quotations were received, as summarized on the attached, for the supply and delivery of water soluble polyelectrolytes used for the dewatering of anaerobically digested sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and Highland Creek Treatment Plant, and for the dissolved air flotation of waste activated sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and Humber Treatment Plant required by Works and Emergency Services for the period ending December 31, 2000.

The Interim Functional Lead of Water and Wastewater has examined these quotations and has reported that the products offered by the various firms were subjected to laboratory scale testing to determine which met the criteria listed in the specification. The products passing this preliminary test, then were subjected to further analysis and evaluation. The attached shows the bid price as well as the evaluated cost per tonne of dry solids processed based on performance and price evaluation of those products which met the performance criteria and specifications in the quotation terms of reference.

The Interim Functional Lead of Water and Wastewater concurs with the recommendations made.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firms recommended.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A summary of the evaluated quotations received is attached.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to award contracts for the supply and delivery of polyelectrolytes used for the dewatering of anaerobically digested sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and raw sludge at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, and for the dissolved air flotation of waste activated sludge at the Main Treatment Plant and Humber Treatment Plant required by Works and Emergency Services for the period ending December 31, 2000, to Allied Colloids (Canada) Incorporated and Canada Flocculants Incorporated, being the firms offering the products which provided the most effective performance at the lowest evaluated costs.

Contact Name:

Mr. L. A. Pagano, Director

Phone: 392-7312

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (March 22, 1998) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, raising questions with respect to the quotations for polyelectrolytes.

15

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Deposit/Return System for Alcoholic

and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Containers.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report and communication; and having directed that such 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 TheWorks and Utilities Committee):

(i)(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 March25, 1998; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(ii)(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 Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Status and Reconfirmation of Stormwater Group.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following communication until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on May 20, 1998, as a deputation item; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report thereon to such meeting:

(April 21, 1998) from Ms. Joyce McLean, City of Toronto Stormwater Group, respecting the background and status of the Stormwater Group, formed as an advisory group to the former City of Toronto in October 1996, pursuant to an Exemption Order issued by the Minister of Environment and Energy for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel Environmental Assessment; and recommending that:

(1)City Council adopt the Committee Report and its recommendations as previously adopted by Toronto City Council in the July 14, 1997 minutes;

(2)City Council reinstate the Stormwater Group as the City's primary advisory Committee on stormwater management with:

-the appointment of one or more City Councillors as chairs(s);

-the reappointment of current members, and additional members to be considered to reflect the wider constituency of the new city; and

-staff resources, including administration services, from Parks and Recreation, Works and Emergency Services, and Urban Development and Planning, to be allocated to the Committee; and

(3)the Stormwater Group meet with and coordinate planning and information with the (former Metro) Wet Weather Master Planning process and report back to the Works and Utilities Committee.

(c)Deep Lake Water Cooling Project.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on May 20, 1998, as a deputation item;

(2)requested that any proponents of deep lake water cooling be advised accordingly; and

(3)requested the Chair of the Committee to consult with the Members of Council serving on the Boards of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission and the Toronto District Heating Corporation with respect thereto:

(i)(April 7, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater providing an update on the status of the Deep Lake Water Cooling Project; advising that the innovative project is expected to have environmental and economic benefits to the City; further advising that a pre-design study and Class Environmental Assessment is underway to allow public input and confirm project viability while maintaining the security and integrity of the water supply system; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(ii)(April 21, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd., requesting the opportunity to address the Committee with respect to the Deep Lake Water Cooling Project, and requesting that the report dated April 7, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater be listed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Committee as a deputation item.

(d)Interim Purchasing By-law.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communications to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, with a request that he:

(1)meet with interested parties, including the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission with respect to negotiations that are taking place with the Commission; and

(2)submit a report to the Committee on a tendering policy, taking into consideration any relevant policies before the Corporate Services Committee and the brief prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, such report to be listed as a deputation item.

(i)(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 2 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Interim Purchasing By-law", which was adopted, as amended by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, and a copy of By-law No. 57-1998, enacted by Council on March 6, 1998.

(ii)(February 18, 1998) from Mr. Salvatore Morra, Executive Director, Metropolitan Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, forwarding a brief prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association entitled "Running Water: Best Practices in Standardized Construction Contracts in the New City of Toronto", and advising that the City has the opportunity to bring its sewer and watermain construction contract language and practices into line with best practices in Canada, resulting in lower costs and no negative impact on services.

(iii)(March 11, 1998) from Mr. Jacques Daoust, President, Engineered Coatings Ltd., respecting the ability of amalgamated public sector agencies to expand Tender Restriction Clauses in former tendering policies to new areas within the new City of Toronto; expressing concern about restricting those who can bid on taxpayer funded projects; and requesting a commitment in developing a fair tendering policy.

(iv)(March 12, 1998) from Mr. John Mohle, Wellington Construction Inc., advising that Wellington Construction Inc. supports an open tendering policy, that the company has constructed municipal contracts as a major portion of its works, and that its employees as taxpayers should be able to work on taxpayer funded projects.

(v)(March 23, 1998) from Mr. Joe D'Alessandro, President, Duplex Electrical Ltd., supporting an open tendering policy with regard to non-union and union trades; and advising that restrictive clauses in job tenders would result in job layoffs, and that as these are taxpayer funded projects, they should be open to all qualified contractors, not just those that are unionized.

(vi)(April 1, 1998) from Mr. Rod Shantz, President, RodCo Mechanical Inc., respecting tendering policies for projects in the Toronto District School Board and City of Toronto amalgamated areas; and expressing support for an open tendering policy and the elimination of restrictive clauses in any legislation.

(e)Waste Watcher Recycling Program.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having been advised by the Chair of the Committee that a cheque in the amount of $21,000.00 had been forwarded to the Works and Emergency Services Department by CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling, as a contribution towards funding for the Waste Watcher Recycling Program.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, April 22, 1998

(Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998.)