TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 6

1Banning of Wine and Spirit Containers from the Blue Box Program and Landfill Sites

2Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the Main Treatment Plant

3Blue Box Container Material Processing Contract

4Class Action - Keele Valley Landfill Site

5Water Main - Jane Street Between Lawrence Avenue West and Harding Avenue (Ward 6 - North York Humber)

6Restoration and Maintenance Works Within Watercourse South of Citation Drive from Bayberry Crescent to Burbank Drive (Ward 12 - Seneca Heights)

7Quotation for Liquid Chlorine

8Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement

9Compliance Program with Monetary Concession - Nu-Way Potato Products Limited

10Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 6

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 17, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

Banning of Wine and Spirit Containers

from the Blue Box Program and Landfill Sites

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause, by:

(1)deleting from Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) of the Works and Utilities Committee the date "September 1, 1998" and inserting in lieu thereof the date "January 1, 1999", as the date the By-law shall come into force and the implementation of the ban shall come into effect;

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) of the Works and Utilities Committee to provide that the communications strategy begin in September, 1998, or sooner if staff are ready;

(3)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the Mayor be requested to write to the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of the Environment requesting that the Province of Ontario implement a deposit/return system for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario;

(b)the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to meet with the Minister of Finance to discuss the implementation of a deposit/return system by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the costs of such system to the Province of Ontario and the cost to recycle glass through the Blue Box Program, and report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee in September, 1998;

(c)the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Works and Utilities Committee on:

(i)amending the licensing fee for vendors of alcoholic beverages to ensure full cost recovery of the City's costs in relation to the servicing of that licence, including enforcement and related operational costs; and

(ii)initiating a licence denial system for non-payment of costs to the City; and

(d)this report be forwarded to all municipalities in Ontario with populations over50,000.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that:

(1)Council reaffirm its decision to remove wine and spirit containers from the Blue Box program effective September 1, 1998;

(2)the by-law appended to the report dated June 15, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management be adopted, subject to deleting the date of "1stday of January, 1999" as the date the by-law shall come into force and inserting in lieu thereof "1st day of September, 1998";

(3)a communications strategy as outlined in the communication dated June 17, 1998, from Councillor Judy Sgro, to encourage consumers to return wine and spirit containers to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), be adopted; and reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998, on the cost and details of such a communications strategy;

(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to contact the LCBO for locations on their property where the City can station bulk lift containers for the recycling of wine and spirit bottles;

(5)if the LCBO refuses to co-operate, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Committee on locations near LCBO outlets where recycling containers for wine and spirit bottles may be stationed;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on July 15, 1998, on a plan to implement the bulk lift collection of wine and spirit containers at or near LCBO outlets;

(7)once the foregoing is implemented, the City of Toronto bill the LCBO for the cost of this service effective September 1, 1998; and

(8)Brewers Retail be requested to assist in receiving wine and spirit containers at their outlets.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the next meeting of the Committee on:

(i)removing coloured glass from the Blue Box program, and how such policy could be incorporated into a communications program; and

(ii)methods of improving collection of all materials at curbside.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (June 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To provide information on issues related to the management of beverage containers.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications at this time as a result of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the communications program to encourage Toronto residents to return wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase be deferred until such time as a deposit/return system for wine and spirit containers is operational.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee, as amended, and in doing so directed that all Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) containers be banned from the City's Blue Box program and landfill sites effective September1, 1998.

City Council also requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1)(a) develop a communications program to have homeowners return their wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase;

(b)bring forth a by-law to require a deposit/return system in the City of Toronto for all other beverage containers;

(2)submit to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee a draft by-law for a deposit/return system for LCBO containers sold in the City of Toronto, retaining outside counsel, if necessary;

(3)submit a report on:

(a)establishing of a depot system which would allow residents to return wine bottles, soft drink containers, etc., on a voluntary basis for recycling; and

(b)the use of bottle return machines that provide a cash refund and the possibility of having the program sponsored by non-profit volunteer groups; and

(4)submit a report on the costs and benefits of keeping aluminum cans as part of the Blue Box system, such report to include:

(a)employment in the aluminum recycling industry;

(b)environmental implications; and

(c)potential loss of municipal revenue.

Comments and Discussion:

Wine and Spirit Container Ban:

The issue of banning wine and spirit containers from the municipal waste management system is dealt with in a separate report on this agenda from the City Solicitor.

Draft Deposit/Return By-law:

A draft deposit/return by-law for wine and spirit containers, effective January 1, 1999, has been prepared by the City Solicitor and is attached to this report. The by-law simply requires vendors of wine and spirit containers to implement a deposit/return system as a condition of their business licences. The legal issues related to this by-law are discussed in a report from the City Solicitor entitled "Implementation of a Deposit Return System for Wine and Spirit Containers", which was before City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998.

The drafting of a deposit/return by-law for other beverage containers, which is a more complex undertaking, has been deferred pending the outcome of the wine and spirit container initiative.

Communications Program for Wine and Spirit Containers:

Any proposed communications program would need to advise residents that Council supports the return of used alcoholic beverage containers to the point of purchase, and encourage residents to comply with City Council's policy regarding this matter.

Ontario Regulation 101/94 under the Environmental Protection Act entitled "Recycling and Composting of Municipal Waste" requires all municipalities with a population over 5,000 to operate a Blue Box waste management system which includes aluminum, steel, glass and plastic beverage containers.

Section 7(2)(g) of Regulation 101/94 specifically states that "the Blue Box waste management system must include the provision of information to users and potential users of the Blue Box waste management system (i) describing the performance of the system, and (ii) encouraging effective source separation of Blue Box waste and full use of the Blue Box waste management system."

The City Solicitor advises that implementing a communications campaign to encourage residents to return wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase would likely be considered a contravention of Section 7(2)(g) of Regulation 101/94. However, once a deposit/return system is in effect for wine and spirit containers, it might be argued that such a communication campaign was complementary to the operation of the deposit/return system and to the management of waste in general.

It is therefore recommended that the communications program encouraging residents to return their wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase be deferred until a deposit/return system for these containers is operational.

Establishment of a Depot System for the Voluntary Return of Beverage Containers:

The establishment of voluntary container recycling depots without a deposit/return system is likely to result in much lower recovery rates than under a deposit/return system. Unless depots are located conveniently, people may travel additional distances, resulting in additional vehicle emissions and resource use.

In order to evaluate the potential for a return to depot system without deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers, three options have been reviewed and are discussed below.

(a)Depots Located at All City Transfer Stations:

Depots are currently located at two transfer stations to recover a variety of materials such as tires, polystyrene, scrap metal and Blue Box materials. The seven transfer stations in the City are generally located in industrial areas. The inconvenience of the system would likely result in low participation. Therefore, this depot system is not recommended.

(b)Depots Located at City-Owned Sites:

In the past, collection of recyclable material through recycling domes has resulted in high levels of contamination and the depositing of non-recyclable waste around domes. Collecting containers through domes would also result in significant capital expenditures to purchase the domes and a net operating cost of approximately $300.00 per tonne to service the domes. Due to contamination concerns and the cost, the use of City-owned locations for a depot system is not recommended.

(c)Depots at Retail Outlets:

There are two alternatives to recover containers from residents at retail outlets: un-staffed depots and bottle return machines.

The establishment of un-staffed depots at retail outlets, strip plazas, and shopping centres would minimize environmental impacts and maximize convenience of return material recovery. However, the City Solicitor has advised that the City does not have the authority to require the establishment of depots in existing retail outlets, strip plazas, and shopping centres. Therefore, approval would be required by the retailers to allow depots to be placed on their premises (e.g., parking lots).

Bottle return machines that provide a cash refund, or reverse vending machines, are another option as it may be possible to secure agreements with owners of some retail establishments to locate a limited number of these machines on their premises at no charge. However, similar to un-staffed depots, the retailers may have some concerns, such as spacial limitations, about placing the machines in their stores. Reverse vending machines cost approximately $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 each and are expensive to maintain. It is estimated that capital costs of $20 million and operating costs of approximately $500.00 per tonne would be required to operate a comprehensive reverse vending machine program for Toronto.

In terms of the possibility of having the program operated by non-profit volunteer group, given the service, maintenance, and leasing activities involved in establishing a system of bottle return machines with a cash refund, it is highly unlikely that volunteer associations could be found for the management of this system.

Due to the high costs and complexity of establishing a machine container return system, such a system is not recommended at this time.

Costs and Benefits of Keeping Aluminum Cans as Part of the Blue Box System:

Approximately 2,000 tonnes of aluminum cans are recovered annually under the City's current recycling program and through private collection from the commercial sector. It is estimated that another 4,000 tonnes could be recovered annually through a deposit/return system, assuming a recovery rate of approximately 85 percent. This would result in a total estimated recovery of 6,000tonnes of aluminum cans annually under a deposit/return system.

(a)Employment in the Aluminum Recycling Industry:

Retaining aluminum cans as part of the Blue Box program, as opposed to having them as part of an overall container deposit/return system, will not have any significant impact on employment in the aluminum recycling industry. Aluminum can sheet recycling mills, which are located in the United States, would receive sorted, baled aluminum cans under either a deposit system or the Blue Box program. There would be the estimated 4,000 tonne increase in quantities of aluminum cans recovered from the Toronto municipal waste stream under a deposit system. This would represent a nominal increase for these large aluminum recycling mills.

(b)Environmental Implications:

Retaining aluminum cans in the Blue Box system would result in the continued disposal of approximately 4,000 tonnes of aluminum cans, which would otherwise be recovered under a deposit/return program. The recovery of this recyclable aluminum would result in reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if the recycled aluminum replaced primary aluminum production.

(c)Potential Loss of Municipal Revenue:

In 1997, aluminum beverage cans generated $2.3 million of the City's total Blue Box material revenue of $12.5 million, including fibre material. Removal of aluminum cans from the Blue Box would therefore result in a loss of revenue of $2.3 million. This would be partially off-set by savings resulting from the redesign of collection and processing systems to reflect the reduced volumes of material under deposit/return.

Conclusions:

Based on a review of current Provincial regulations, it is recommended that the communications program to encourage Toronto residents to return wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase be deferred until such time as a deposit/return system for wine and spirit containers is in effect.

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".

--------

Authority:

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend further By-law No. 20-85, a by-law

"Respecting the licensing, regulating and governing

of trades, callings, businesses and occupations

in the Metropolitan Area", being a by-law of the former

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of section 257.2 of the Municipal Act, as amended, a council may licence any business carried on within the municipality, may define any class of business and may separately license, regulate and govern such class;

AND WHEREAS council may impose conditions, including special conditions, as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence and may regulate or govern the place or premises used in the carrying on of the business;

AND WHEREAS it is in the public interest to licence retail vendors of wines and spirits which are sold for consumption off sales premises and that the conditions of licensing address the matter of waste being generated from the business of such retail vendors and, in particular, the beverage containers which subsequently enter the municipal waste management system;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Section 1 of By-law No. 20-85, a By-law "Respecting the licensing, regulating and governing of trades, callings, businesses and occupations in the Metropolitan Area" as amended, being a by-law of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, is further amended by adding the following definitions as new subsections 1(1a) and 1(49):

1(1a) "alcoholic beverage" means wine or spirits as those terms are defined in the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended;

1(49)"vendor of alcoholic beverages" means a person who offers alcoholic beverages for sale at retail for consumption off the sale premises.

2.By-law No. 20-85, as amended, is further amended by adding subsection 2(64) as follows:

2(64)a vendor of alcoholic beverages

3.Schedule 1 of By-law No. 20-85, as amended, relating to the annual fees for licences, is further amended by adding the following under the columns indicated:

4.By-law No. 20-85, as amended, is further amended by adding the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE 42 TO BY-LAW NO. 20-85

Relating to Vendors of Alcoholic Beverages

1. In this Schedule,

(1)"alcohol sales location" means premises in the City of Toronto at which a vendor of alcoholic beverages offers alcoholic beverages for sale at retail for consumption off the premises;

(2)"container return system" means a system which:

(a)provides facilities for the return of alcoholic beverage containers at all of a vendor's alcohol sales locations in the urban area; and

(b)complies with the standards set out in section 2 of this Schedule;

(3)"urban area" has the meaning set out in the City of Toronto Act, 1997; and

(4)"vendor" means a vendor of alcoholic beverages.

2.A vendor shall establish and operate a container return system meeting the standards as follows:

STANDARDS

(1)Deposit -A vendor shall charge a minimum container deposit of $0.10 for each alcoholic beverage sold in a container up to and including 500 ml., and a minimum container deposit of $0.40 for each alcoholic beverage sold in a container larger than 500 ml.;

(2)Return -The vendor shall refund the container deposit in full without charge on the return of a container for which the vendor charged a deposit;

(3)The vendor shall not sell any alcoholic beverages in containers without an identification on the container that the container is subject to return for refund; and

(4)The vendor shall not dispose of any containers returned for refund directly or indirectly by arrangements for landfilling or incineration of the containers.

5.This by-law shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1999.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (June 17, 1998) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York - Humber:

Staff recommendation to defer the communications plan for the LCBO take back program until a deposit/return plan is operational will delay pressure on the Provincial Government to implement a deposit/return system for LCBO containers. Notwithstanding the solicitor's cautious interpretation, I believe the public will support an aggressive communications plan to take the environmentally and economically superior approach to managing alcoholic beverage containers in the waste stream. Furthermore, I think the Province would be foolhardy to take the issue before the courts.

Therefore, I would ask that:

(1)the Committee consider implementing the following draft communications plan;

(2)staff be asked to cost out the various components of the plan for the next Council meeting; and

(3)materials be vetted through a communications sub-committee of the Works and Utilities Committee.

Suggested Components of a Communications Plan to Get Empty LCBO Containers Returned to Retail Store:

(1)Production of Information Flyers:

-For inclusion in municipal mailouts, such as hydro, water, tax or other direct communications around critical issues, such as CVA implementation;

-to be left at curbside in blue boxes when LCBO containers are found in the Blue Box;

-to be left at various locations, municipal buildings, community centres, welfare office;

-to be left at retail outlets - possibly including the Beer Stores and the LCBO stores, if permission is granted; and

-to be handed out at Councillors' Environment Days.

(2)Creation of Advertising Posters:

-For prominent locations, bus shelters, municipal buildings, billboards, etc.

(3)Waste Watch Newspaper:

-Prepare an information piece for the upcoming issue.

(4)Use of the Waste Management Advertising Budget:

-Either replace one of the scheduled advertising campaigns, or add an additional one to be inserted in major newspapers and community papers.

(5)Councillors' Newsletters:

-Encourage Councillors to promote the issue in their up-coming newsletters.

(6)General Media:

-Generate on-air, written or other news stories that draw LCBO and government officials into the discussion, and give the issue prominence.

(7)The City of Toronto Web Site:

-Add an interactive segment on the home page that gives prominence to the bottle return program.

(8)That CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling be asked to provide funding from their communications budget to support this major waste diversion and recycling project.

Your support for these recommendations would be very much appreciated.

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (June 1, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment on the legal implications of the Council direction as set out in the Council Reference section of this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information and forwarded to City Council for its information and further direction on the banning of Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) containers from the Blue Box program given the conclusion of this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee, as amended, and in doing so directed that all LCBO containers be banned from the City's Blue Box program and landfill sites effective September1, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 101/94 made under the Environmental Protection Act (the "EPA"), a local municipality with a population of at least five thousand must establish, operate and maintain a blue box waste management system. The source separated blue box waste must be source separated from other kinds of waste collected from residential sources and must contain at least the categories of waste set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulation. The categories of waste set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulation include glass bottles and jars for food or beverages. Accordingly, any banning of LCBO containers would be a contravention of the Regulation.

We note that City Council had before it a communication from the firm of Outerbridge Miller indicating that in the opinion of Mr. Robert Power, deposit-return containers (defined presumably by City policy) are not a "waste" and that the municipality could opt out of collecting the material despite provincial regulations. This opinion was based upon a recent case, Philip Enterprises Inc. v. Ontario (Ministry of Environment and Energy).

The Philip case dealt with the issue of whether chop-line residue was a "waste" within the meaning of the EPA and therefore subject to the process of requiring certificates of approval. The issue was dealt with in the context that until 1994 chop-line residue was a recyclable material defined in the EPA but then removed. The Court therefore examined the meaning of "waste" in the absence of any specific regulation addressing the residue. The Court held that the residue was not a waste by applying a dictionary meaning referencing a lack of value to the term.

Notwithstanding the outcome of this case, the Court appeared to recognize that the Ministry could designate certain types of materials, including the subject residue, as waste for the purposes of regulation under the EPA. In fact, the Ministry has moved since the decision to designate such residue as a waste.

In a similar fashion it is clear that the Legislature has allowed for regulation making authority to mandate blue box systems. Clause 176(4)(j) of the EPA allows for a regulation:

(j)for the purpose of furthering the diversion of waste from final disposal, requiring municipalities and such other persons as may be specified in the regulation to establish such waste disposal sites or waste management systems as may be specified in the regulation.

In accordance with this regulation making authority, the Minister has provided for a definition of "blue box waste" and extensive regulations pertaining to the management of such waste, including the mandatory acceptance from residential sources.

Conclusions:

In our opinion and contrary to the opinion expressed by Mr. Power in his communication, dated April20, 1998, which was before City Council, municipalities cannot ban LCBO containers from the Blue Box program without contravening provincial regulation.

Contact Name:

J. Anderson - 392-8059.

--------

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:

(1)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. W. Douglas Symington, Director - Public Affairs, Consumers Packaging Inc., advising that Consumers Glass opposes the proposal to remove wine and spirit glass containers from the Blue Box; and requesting that City staff be directed to examine options to drive costs out of the existing recycling system; and

(2)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. Kenneth J. Mulhall, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Loblaw Companies Limited, advising, on behalf of the various Ontario grocery retailers of Loblaw Companies Limited, which include Loblaws, Zehrs, Fortinos, Your Independent Grocer, valu-mart and No Frills, that Loblaw Companies Limited does not support the City's plan to impose an illegal ban on wine and spirit bottles from the Blue Box and landfill.

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

-Mr. Joseph P. Hruska, Vice-President, Municipal Development, CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance;

-Mr. Usman Valiante, General Science Works;

-Ms. Linda Lynch, Environment Watch; and

-Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 3, 1998) from the General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

To provide cost and details related to a communications strategy to encourage residents to return wine and liquor bottles to point of purchase.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the communications strategy outlined in this report for 1998 can be made available from existing communications funds for Blue Box Program promotion. Total funds of $115,000.00 would be spent from operating account number O-WD600-U67006.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on June 17, 1998, requested the Commissioner to provide the cost and details of Councillor Judy Sgro's communications program in the form of a report directly to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Recycling liquor and wine bottles in the blue box is a firmly established and entrenched practice for the public. If a "soft" ban is implemented on September 1, 1998, whereby the City will still collect liquor and wine bottles placed in blue boxes while encouraging residents to return them to Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) outlets, we recommend a moderate communications campaign. When the ban is fully enforced, and the City no longer collects liquor and wine bottles, a more substantial public education campaign will be required.

An initiative of this type requires its major communications to take place at the time when the required behavioural change is greatest. While some residents will begin to bring bottles back to LCBO outlets, most residents will continue to place their bottles in their blue boxes as long as that option is available to them. When liquor and wine bottles are no longer collected, it will represent a significant change to the Blue Box Program and a substantial change for the behaviour of residents. Therefore, the major public education thrust (a $250,000.00 - $300,000.00 campaign) would be reserved for that time. Subject to this occurring in 1999 and the direction to proceed, specific funds would have to be included in the preparation of our 1999 operating budget estimate.

The initial communications campaign must be built around a simple and straightforward message which explains the ban, encourages residents to return bottles to the LCBO, reassures that bottles will still be collected for now and supports the continued viability of the Blue Box Recycling Program.

A number of barriers to a successful public education campaign must be addressed prior to implementation. The LCBO's communications plans on this issue must be considered. There must be a visible, workable program in place at LCBO outlets to accept bottles or consumers will not return them. The bottles must be kept out of landfill, or the City will face a public backlash since people are being asked to go to extra effort. There must be recognition that a majority of the public will not return the bottles until a full ban is enforced and will simply continue to place them in their blue boxes.

The political situation that leads to the ban is not widely understood by the public, nor can it be easily communicated. Many residents may not care about the rationale for the change and will only want to know how the changes affect them. For this reason, the public education message must be kept extremely simple. The proposed communications program would include the following

(1)focus group research - to determine public attitudes and willingness to change behaviours. This is crucial in order to craft a plan based on the existing reality;

(2)a press conference and media relations - to generate media coverage of the issue and where more complex background information would be supplied;

(3)an information brochure - for distribution at curbside, municipal offices, displays, Environment Days, libraries, civic centres and LCBO outlets;

(4)advertising - a small campaign (newspapers) to explain the ban and the actions residents should take (also perhaps transit shelters depending on timing);

(5)preparing telephone answering staff for influx of calls;

(6)Waste Watch newsletter article - delivered to all homes and apartments in Toronto;

(7)Councillors' newsletters - ready-to-use articles and graphics;

(8)ethno-racial outreach - to reach residents in languages other than English;

(9)updated Web Site information;

(10)presentations - to schools, community groups, etc.;

(11)correcting all existing publications and displays by developing stickers and/or stamps for temporary use; and

(12)collection calendars with updated information and messages.

Six months after the ban, we propose to conduct a public attitude survey to find out what percentage of the public is aware of the liquor and wine bottle ban and what percentage of the public is returning bottles to the LCBO. Using the results of the public attitude survey, a full public education program would be developed to support the full implementation of the ban.

Timing and Budget:

Subject to Council's direction and the necessity for public attitude research prior to the development of key messages, it will be difficult to produce and prepare all of these materials and activities by the proposed September 1,1998 launch date. Some of the elements could be in place for the launch with the others following throughout the fall. Some of the major activities, however, such as media relations and advertising, will be less effective with a September 1, 1998 launch date, due to inadequate lead time and/or back-to-school conflicts. Specific activities, timing and budget are indicated in the table below:

Budget total: $115,000.00

Conclusions:

The communications program outlined above as amended from Councillor Sgro's original plan, could be undertaken at a total cost of $115,000.00 in 1998. Funding for this plan would be taken from existing communications funds for Blue Box Program promotion in operating account numberO-WD600-U67006.

Contact Name:

Nicole Dufort

Manager, Environmental Promotions and Consultation Branch

Management and Technical Services

City Works and Emergency Services Department

Phone: (416) 392-2963

Fax: (416) 392-2974

E-Mail:nicole_dufort@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (undated) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York - Humber:

Please find attached a summary of resolutions from 144 Ontario municipalities supporting a deposit-refund system for beverage containers. These municipalities comprise over 70 percent of Ontario's population.

Many of the resolutions are the result of a letter we sent to Ontario municipalities. These municipalities support The City of Toronto in its efforts and look to the City for leadership on this issue.

Of note is that many municipalities undertook extensive staff work to show the benefits of an LCBO deposit-refund system to their Blue Box programs.

The LCBO is preparing to receive containers and has installed 600 bins throughout its stores. Clearly the LCBO can accept containers back for redemption.

If Toronto residents are educated on the issue through a communications plan, it is likely that they will even more strongly support a return to retail initiative for LCBO containers.

With our and our constituents' resolve, the Province must make a decision that benefits the Blue Box and the environment.)

(A copy of the summary of resolutions, entitled "Ontario Municipal Endorsements for Deposit/Return on Beverage Containers", which was 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, a communication (June17, 1998) from Mr. K. West, Director, Waste Management Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment, advising that Ministry staff will review various options with respect to funding the blue box program before making a decision on the best approach for Ontario.)

2

Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial

Re-use Program at the Main Treatment Plant

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the report dated July 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled 'Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Re-Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to:

(1)establish the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee as outlined in this report;

(2)establish the Independent Review Committee as outlined in this report;

(3)request statements of qualification from consulting firms related to relevant experience with biosolids management and design/build projects for the purpose of selecting a consultant based solely on qualifications and experience;

(4)include the following people in the review of the statements of qualification for the selection of the Biosolids Project Manager and consultants for the Expressions of Interest (EOI) and Request for Proposals (RFP) processes:

(a)the General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services;

(b)the Director of Water Pollution Control;

(c)the Executive Director of Technical Services; and

(d)two representatives of the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee; and

(5)negotiate an Agreement with the selected consulting firm agreeable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor within the funding request contained in our June 16, 1998 report to Works and Utilities Committee.'; and

(b)the report dated July 9, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled 'Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Re-Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant - Harbour Remediation and Transfer', be received.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report dated June 16, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to the following amendments:

(i)deleting Recommendation No. (6)(vii) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(vii)report to the Works and Utilities Committee with recommendations on the proposals submitted for the construction and operation of facilities to support beneficial use programs in February 1999, such proposals to include public operation options;"

(ii)adding thereto the following additional Recommendation No. (6)(ix):

"(ix)the Expressions of Interest and Requests for Proposals be developed with such proposals not precluding the City's ability to select public sector or private sector operation of the facilities or some combination thereof;"

(iii)amending the membership of the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee to provide for two Union representatives, with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to determine the appropriate Unions to be represented; and

(iv)expanding the membership of the Technical Advisory Committee to include more technical representation;

(2)Harbour Remediation & Transfer Inc. (HR&T) not be permitted to award any contracts until after the July 8, 1998 Council approval of the selected process; and reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a full report on the process and the selected contractor to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998;

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be involved in the bid process for odour control equipment for HR&T;

(4)proponents responding to the Expressions of Interest be requested to comment on whether their facilities could be sited at the Main Treatment Plant;

(5)some of the technical advisors be independent; and reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to Council on July 8, 1998, clarifying how this will be accomplished; and

(6)the technical advisory process be undertaken in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(i)arrange a briefing with regard to Harbour Remediation & Transfer Inc. for interested Councillors prior to the meeting of Council on July 8, 1998;

(ii)report to Council on July 8, 1998, on the results of the briefing of Councillors, and confirm that he and the staff are fully satisfied with the solution in all aspects, in particular to address the situation at Falconbridge including investigation of the experience to date and on any concerns arising in that community;

(iii)consider the suggestions made with respect to the membership of the proposed committees, and report to Council on July 8, 1998, on such suggestions;

(iv)consider whether the Technical Advisory Committee should be separate from the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee, or whether such committees could be folded together; and

(v)further report to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998, on the following:

(a)whether there is any validity in the concerns raised during the deputations by Ms. Joyce McLean and Mr. Jim Chisholm with respect to the environmental impact of biosolids on agricultural land;

(b)Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food studies on the effects of hazardous chemicals in soil and sewage sludge; and

(c)the acreage of mine tailings that is available and capable of receiving lime-treated biosolids, with comments from the Ministry of the Environment; and

(2)referred the submission by Ms. Joyce McLean to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for consideration in his report on the new sewer use by-law; and to the Environmental Task Force.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report is supplemental to the May 15, 1998 report on the implementation of a 100 percent biosolids beneficial reuse program at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP) and responds to the various motions for further information as requested by the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of May 20, 1998, when the report was considered. The recommendations contained in this report supersede those of the previous report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of the recommendations of this report would require budgetary approval in 1998 for expenditure of $15,000.00 to support public consultation, $400,000.00 for the retention of technical consultants, $50,000.00 for the retention of a Project Manager, and up to $250,000.00 to reimburse proponents who develop comprehensive proposals to support beneficial use of the biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant. Total 1998 expenditures would thus be projected at up to $715,000.00. Total 1999 expenditures are estimated at up to $115,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) for the City of Toronto be established immediately to facilitate ongoing public consultation and involvement in the ending of incineration at the Main Treatment Plant, with all meetings advertised and open to the public, and with the following membership:

(i)three City of Toronto Councillors (Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee and one Councillor from each of the two wards containing the Main Treatment Plant, with the other two Ward Councillors serving as alternates);

(ii)six representatives from the Neighbourhood Liaison Committees (two each from Main Treatment Plant, Humber Treatment Plant, and Highland Creek Treatment Plant Committees);

(iii)one environmental group representative;

(iv)one representative from the Safe Sewage Committee;

(v)one public health representative;

(vi)two representatives from local industry in the Port Area; and

(vii)one unionized staff representative from the Main Treatment Plant;

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to provide secretariat support to the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee, including the annual provision of $15,000.00 to support the activities of the Committee;

(3)a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), be established immediately to provide technical advice on all aspects of the biosolids program, to obtain outside technical advice as required, to review and develop recommendations on all documents related to the notification, short-listing and selection of proponents for beneficial reuse of biosolids from the treatment plants, with the following membership:

(i)Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee (Chair);

(ii)one representative from the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee;

(iii)General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services;

(iv)one university representative with expertise in a discipline related to biosolids;

(v)two representatives from municipalities that have successfully implemented a biosolids beneficial use program; and

(vi)one representative with expertise in biosolids regulations;

(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to provide funding up to a maximum of $400,000.00 for technical consultants in 1998, and $100,000.00 in each of 1999 and 2000, to support staff and the Technical Advisory Committee;

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to select and retain consultants as needed to assist staff and the Technical Advisory Committee;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to:

(i)retain a Project Manager at an estimated 1998 cost of $50,000.00, with annual expenditures thereafter of $100,000.00 to manage ceasing of incineration at the Main Treatment Plant and implementation of a 100 percent beneficial use program for the biosolids;

(ii)extend and expand the current land application program as an interim measure subject to satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues related to odour control and shipping facilities;

(iii)advertise internationally for Expressions of Interest (EOI) from proponents with direct experience in beneficial reuse of biosolids, with the financial and organizational capabilities to provide a biosolids management program for up to 53,000 dry tonnes per year within a time frame of one to two years for design, construction, and initiation of operations;

(iv)advertise internationally for Expressions of Interest from proponents with the financial and organizational capabilities to design/build biosolids loading facilities, odour control facilities, and heat generation facilities within a time frame of one to two years for design construction and initiation of operations;

(v)develop Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for approval by the Technical Advisory Committee and review by the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee to be issued in October 1998 to proponents short-listed from the Expression of Interest process;

(vi)reimburse up to five short-listed proponents up to $50,000.00 each for their costs in preparing detailed proposals for beneficial use of biosolids at the treatment plants;

(vii)report to the Works and Utilities Committee with recommendations on proponents to construct facilities and assume responsibility for beneficial use programs in February 1999; and

(viii)seek approval of the Budget Review Group for the 1998 expenditures identified and to include the projected 1999 expenditures in the Department's 1999 budget request;

(7)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the September meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on the Source Control Program including recommendations on resources, targets, on the role of pollution prevention programs and on the potential impact on sewage quality of programs to reduce combined sewage and stormwater; and

(8)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the September meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee:

(i)with a detailed schedule for ceasing incineration at the Main Treatment Plant including specific annual targets for monitoring progress;

(ii)the utilization of the Humber and Highland Creek Treatment Plants and their implications on the operation of the Main Treatment Plant; and

(iii)on any outstanding items raised in the motions tabled at the Works and Utilities Committee's May 20, 1998 meeting.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on February 11, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee recommended that incineration of sewage sludge at the MTP be stopped no later than January 1, 1999. This recommendation was referred back to the Committee by City Council. A report dated March 16, 1998, was submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

At its meeting of March 25, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee deferred consideration of the Commissioner's March 16, 1998 report and requested additional information on 12, 24 and 36-month plans for implementation of 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids.

A related report, dated May 15, 1998, was submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of May 20, 1998, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The report was referred back to staff for revision and additional information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) will be established immediately to facilitate ongoing public involvement in the ending of incineration at the Main Treatment Plant. Representatives from the neighbourhood liaison committees from the Humber and Highland Creek Treatment Plants will be included so that the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee will be able to address biosolids on a city-wide basis. The BMSC will have the following membership:

(i)three City of Toronto Councillors (Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee and one Councillor from each of the two wards containing the Main Treatment Plant, with the other two Ward Councillors serving as alternates);

(ii)six representatives from the Neighbourhood Liaison Committees (two each from Main Treatment Plant, Humber Treatment Plant, and Highland Creek Treatment Plant Committees);

(iii)one environmental group representative;

(iv)one representative from the Safe Sewage Committee;

(v)one public health representative;

(vi)two representatives from local industry in the Port Area; and

(vii)one unionized staff representative from the Main Treatment Plant.

Each of the groups to be represented will nominate their own representatives. The group so formed will nominate the remaining individuals as required. The BMSC will select its own Chair. The BMSC will need to be established immediately so that they may provide input into the development of the criteria for evaluating the Requests for Proposals.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be established immediately to provide technical advice on all aspects of the biosolids program. The role of the TAC is to provide outside technical advice as required, to review and develop recommendations on all documents related to the notification, short-listing and selection of proponents for beneficial reuse of biosolids from the treatment plants, with the following membership:

(i)Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee (Chair);

(ii)one representative from the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee;

(iii)General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services;

(iv)one university representative with expertise in a discipline related to biosolids;

(v)two representatives from municipalities which have successfully implemented a beneficial use program; and

(vi)one representative with expertise in biosolids regulations.

The TAC will need to be established immediately so that they may provide input into the development of the Request for Proposals, the short-listing of the Expression of Interest submissions and the criteria for evaluating the Requests for Proposals. The consultant will assist staff and the TAC in the preparation and evaluation of the RFPs.

The 36-month plan presented in the report of May 15, 1998, has been revised to allow for an initial Expression of Interest for the construction of required facilities and the provision of biosolids beneficial reuse programs. This will allow for the inclusion of technologies other than those presented in previous reports. The Expressions of Interest will be evaluated in conjunction with the TAC and a short list of qualified companies will be invited to submit proposals for design/build construction of facilities and/or provision of biosolids reuse programs. The proposals will be evaluated based on criteria developed with input from the TAC and the BMSC. Following is a preliminary timeline for the EOI and RFP process.

At the request of the Works and Utilities Committee, included in the minutes of its May 20, 1998 meeting, the following information is provided.

Consumers Gas Assistance with Plant Heating Requirements:

As stated in the report of March 16, 1998, we received estimates from private contractors to provide mobile boilers to provide steam generation. Consumers Gas has indicated that they would follow a similar procedure as they do not supply industrial boilers or services directly. They would recommend one of their authorized dealers to perform required work and then finance the purchase through the gas bill. City staff are also investigating the feasibility of a co-generation project involving the MTP, Toronto Hydro, and local industry which would provide thermal energy as well as electricity.

Results of Harbour Remediation & Transfer Inc. Pilot Testing:

The pilot testing and sampling at Harbour Remediation & Transfer (HR&T) has quantified the expected air flow rates, concentrations of particular odorous compounds and typical odour concentrations. The testing has indicated that a removal efficiency of greater than 99 percent is required and attainable through the use of a carefully selected series of odour control equipment and some modifications to the HR&T facilities and process equipment. Work is now proceeding on preliminary design to establish the required capital and operating costs. All of the biosolids sent to HR&T for the pilot tests has been removed from the HR&T site in accordance with their Certificate of Approval. A presentation will be made to the Committee by Zorix Consultants on the odour control project at its June 17, 1998 meeting.

MTP Solids Train Audit:

A solids train audit was initiated by our staff at the MTP in November 1996. The sludge audit's goal is to improve operating performance and increase the effectiveness of the existing facilities. The audit has been proceeding steadily and has already resulted in significant improvements in the performance of solids handling facilities at the MTP. For example, digester hydraulic retention time has been increased from 8 days to over 12 days by changes in process control. A more detailed report will be presented in 1999. The results and progress of the sludge audit will also be reviewed by the TAC.

Additional work will begin in 1999 as a joint effort between the City of Toronto, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and Environment Canada, focusing on digester optimization and the effects of operating parameters on biosolids stabilization, and odours. The results of this report and the sludge audit will be used to help develop a protocol for other sludge audits in Ontario and assist in the further development of sludge stabilization guidelines.

Conclusions:

In order to establish the 100 percent biosolids utilization at the MTP, it will be necessary to implement the components recommended in this report, and for the Committee to provide the Commissioner with authority to:

-establish the Technical Advisory and Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committees as soon as possible;

-retain consultants to assist the department and the Technical Advisory Committee.;

-retain a biosolids project manager to work with the consultant to prepare necessary Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals; and

-prepare necessary EOI, short-list submission, and prepare and release RFPs for required facilities and biosolids management programs.

Attaining a 100 percent biosolids beneficial use program within as short a time as possible will require that all of the plan's components are tightly integrated. We will submit regular progress reports to the Works and Utilities Committee, updating the status of the various activities.

Additional reports on the long range plans for the City's biosolids management will developed in concert with the TAC and the BMSC, and recommendations will be brought to this Committee.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director, Water Pollution Control Division

Telephone: (416) 392-8230; Fax: (416) 397-0908

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

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

(1)(June 15, 1998) from Ms. Sarah Miller, Coordinator, Canadian Environmental Law Association, urging the Committee to ensure that decisions respecting alternatives to incineration of sewage sludge at the Main Treatment Plant are guided by four key principles, namely, that the City of Toronto take responsibility for the waste it generates by: refusing to export contamination to other parts of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem; reducing contamination at the source; ensuring that the "beneficial uses" of sludge derive from a safe product; and maintaining public sector responsibility and jurisdiction over all aspects of sewage treatment; and

(2)(June 16, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Connell, Toronto, Ontario, raising questions with respect to the construction of a biosolids truck loading facility at the Main Treatment Plant and a study undertaken in 1994 by Gore and Storrie; the attendance of a biosolids consultant at the meeting of the Committee on May 20, 1998; and the intentions of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding planning for the wastewater system.

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

-Mr. Moe Zolghadr, ZORIX Consultants Inc., representing Harbour Remediation & Transfer Inc.;

-Mr. Jim Chisholm, Chair, CUPE Local 79, Environment Committee, and Coordinator, Works Best Practices;

-Ms. Karen Buck, representing the Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee, and Citizens for a Safe Environment, and filed submissions with respect thereto;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Jody P. Amblard, President, Associated Industrial Controls Ltd., and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Joyce McLean, Toronto, Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Colin Lambert, National Director, Health & Safety Branch, CUPE - National;

-Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice-President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416 - CUPE, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Hamish Wilson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Debra Kyles, Kleinburg, Ontario; and

-Ms. Peg Lush, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report is supplemental to the June 16, 1998 report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP) and responds to the various motions for further information as requested by the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of June 17, 1998 when the report was considered.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to:

(1)establish the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee as outlined in this report;

(2)establish the Independent Review Committee as outlined in this report;

(3)request statements of qualification from consulting firms related to relevant experience with biosolids management and design/build projects for the purpose of selecting a consultant based solely on qualifications and experience;

(4)include the following people in the review of the statements of qualification for the selection of the Biosolids Project Manager and consultants for the Expressions of Interest (EOI) and Request for Proposals (RFP) processes:

-the General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services

-the Director of Water Pollution Control

-the Executive Director of Technical Services

-two representatives of the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee; and

(5)negotiate an Agreement with the selected consulting firm agreeable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor within the funding request contained in our June 16, 1998 report to Works and Utilities Committee.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on February 11, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee recommended that incineration of sewage sludge at the MTP be stopped no later than January 1, 1999. This recommendation was referred back to the Committee by City Council. A report dated March 16, 1998, was submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998 by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

At its meeting of March 25, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee deferred consideration of the Works Commissioner's March 16, 1998 report and requested additional information on 12; 24; and 36-month plans for implementation of 100 per cent beneficial reuse of biosolids.

A further report dated May 15, 1998, was submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of May 20, 1998, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The report was referred back to staff for revision and additional information.

A further report dated June 16, 1998, was submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of June 17, 1998, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The report was adopted by Committee with various amendments and requests for additional information to be submitted to the July 8, 1998 meeting of Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following are responses to the requests for additional information contained in the minutes of the June 17, 1998 meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee.

(A)Memberships of Committees, and roles of Committees, consultants and Works staff.

Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC)

The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of June 17,1998 amended the membership of the BMSC to provide for two Union representatives and requested that we reconsider the Committee membership and whether the Technical Advisory Committee now renamed as the Independent Review Committee should be separate from the BMSC, or whether such committees should be folded together. In this regard, an initial public stakeholders' meeting was held on July 6, 1998 to receive public input with respect to these issues. As discussed at the meeting, function, membership, and likely frequency of meetings will be significantly different for each Committee. Accordingly, it is recommended that they be retained as two separate Committees. Linkage will be provided by having the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee and two other members of the BMSC sit on both Committees, as well as by scheduled presentations as required, joint meetings on occasion, if appropriate, and through circulation of minutes.

The role of the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) is to assist in the overall development of the Biosolids program by helping to chart the direction of the program, its goals and intentions. The BMSC will also provide input into the assessment of options or types of technology and highlight specific concerns of the community. Input into the development of the decision-making models and criteria to be used will also be gathered from the BMSC. The members of the BMSC will also provide input and advice as to how the broader community should be kept informed on the status of the programs.

The proposed membership of the BMSC was widely discussed at the July 6, 1998 stakeholders' meeting and based upon the input received, the following revised membership is proposed:

-Three City of Toronto Councillors (Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee and one Councillor from each of the two wards containing the Main Treatment Plant, with the other two Ward Councillors serving as alternates);

-Eight representatives from the Neighbourhood Liaison Committees (Two each from Main Treatment Plant, Humber Treatment Plant, and Highland Creek Treatment Plant Committees and two from the North Toronto Treatment Plant area);

-One representative of a Watersheds group with a broad City-wide representation;

-One representative of the West Rouge Group;

-One representative of the Humber Watershed Group;

-One representative from the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA);

-One representative from the Canada Environmental Law Association (CELA);

-One representative from Safe Sewage Committee;

-One representative from the Womens Network on Health and Environment;

-Two representatives from local industry in the Port Area;

-One representative from the Lakeshore Area Neighbourhoods Association (LANA);

-One representative from the Environmental Task Force (Liaison capacity only); and

-Two unionized staff representative one from the Main Treatment Plant (local 416) and one from Industrial Waste Control Section (local 79).

It was agreed at the July 6, 1998 meeting that the BMSC will report to the Works and Utilities Committee. All information generated by staff, the consultants or the independent review committee related to the biosolids program will be provided to the BMSC so that the Committee will be fully informed and able to provide comments or raise issues in a timely manner. The Committee will have a fixed membership and proposes to operate by consensus wherever possible with the understanding, however, that in the interest of time, some decisions may have to be determined by vote. The selection of members to the BMSC began on July 6, 1998 and will be finalized by the end of July.

Independent Review Committee

Based on input received from the public stakeholders at the July 6, 1998 meeting, we are proposing to rename the Technical Advisory Committee the Independent Review Committee (IRC). This name change distinguishes this Committee from a former process and more accurately describes the role and function of the Committee.

The role of the IRC, is to allow Toronto to draw on experienced knowledgeable individuals, regulators and other jurisdictions which have already implemented beneficial reuse programs. The IRC will review and approve the development of the Expression of Interest and Request For Proposals, as well as review and advise on the consultant's evaluation of the expressions and proposals received. The IRC will also make recommendations that will assist Toronto in the design and development of the biosolids programs and facilities. Their primary role is to provide independent advice on what works well and what does not. The IRC will function independently and will provide technical advice and support to staff, the consultants, and to the BMSC.

The IRC will also have the role of independent peer review. With the exception of the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee and the General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services (who will function in a non-voting capacity for peer review), the IRC will be made up of independent experts who have been invited to assist us. As independent advisors they will fulfill a review function. In this capacity they will monitor the evaluation of proposals for the development of the biosolids management program which will be conducted by the consultants with input from the BMSC and staff. After the consultants, with staff and BMSC input, have evaluated the proposals, and selected preferred candidates, the IRC will determine whether the consultants properly followed the developed and agreed upon evaluation process. The public stakeholders present at the meeting of July 6, 1998 have expressed interest in participating in the selection of the IRC members and this will be discussed further at their next meeting.

It is anticipated that the IRC will meet quarterly or as otherwise required for a full day or two day meeting. The IRC member's appropriate expenses will be paid by the City.

Based on input received at the July 6, 1998 stakeholders' meeting, the membership of the IRC was amended as follows:

-Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee (Chair);

-Two representatives from the BMSC;

-General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services;

-One university representative with expertise in a discipline related to biosolids;

-Two representatives from municipalities that have successfully implemented a biosolids beneficial use program, with one representative having some expertise in industrial source control programs;

-One representative with expertise in biosolids regulations (e.g., US EPA);

-One representative of the Ministry of Environment (MOE); and

-Two representatives with expertise in health implications around agricultural and other land application of biosolids.

The Biosolids program to be developed must be one that balances public desires, the needs of the treatment plant, reliability, economics, timing and existing regulations. The BMSC and the IRC will be key elements in developing the new approach and will participate as much as possible in all decision-making processes. It is anticipated that routine matters required to keep the project moving will be administered directly by the Biosolids Project Manager. For decisions requiring higher level approval, reports will be submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee for subsequent approval by Council. Where a consensual position cannot be agreed upon between staff, the BMSC and the IRC, the positions of each group would be clearly set out in any reports to Works and Utilities Committee.

Technical Consultants

To assist staff in the preparation of the Expression of Interest (EOI) call and Request for Proposals (RFP), a consultant will be retained with particular experience in biosolids management and in the preparation of these documents. The Biosolids Project Manager will be provided by the consultant and will lead the consultant team. The consultant will have primary responsibility for preparing the EOI and RFP documents as quickly as possible based on BMSC, IRC and staff input. The consultant will also have the primary responsibility for the review and evaluation of the proposals for the development of the biosolids management system. The consultants evaluation will then be reviewed by the IRC for compliance with the evaluation methodology. The consultant selected will be expressly prohibited from involvement in any proposal submitted for the design or construction of the related facilities or provision of biosolids programs. In order to achieve the desired timelines, it is crucial that a consultant be selected immediately. We anticipate retaining a consultant by late July so that we may have an EOI request prepared for review by the BMSC and IRC in mid-August. A further public meeting has been scheduled for July 13, 1998 to assist staff in identifying a short-list of consultants to be considered for this assignment. To achieve this tight timeline the following process is proposed:

(1)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services with input from the BMSC as constituted as of July 13, 1998, will send Terms of Reference outlining the work required to several qualified local consulting firms from our consultant roster.

(2)These firms will be asked to submit a statement of qualification which directly addresses their experience with EOIs and RFPs for biosolids beneficial use programs and design/build projects. They must indicate the staff involved in those specific projects, and which of those staff can be made available immediately for work on the City of Toronto's project. (Many of the local consulting firms have agreements with American or other international partners who will be able to provide the necessary depth of experience).

(3)The following will meet and select a consultant based on qualifications and experience:

-the General Manager Water and Wastewater Service;

-the Director of Water Pollution Control;

-the Executive Director of Technical Services; and

-two representatives of the BMSC.

(4)An Agreement for the required services will be negotiated with the selected consultant suitable to the Commissioner and the City Solicitor.

(B)Safety of Biosolids Use on Agricultural Land.

A 1996 report by the National Research Council titled " Use of reclaimed water and sludge in food crop production" which exhaustively reviewed the available literature on agricultural use of biosolids, states "Research on the bio availability of toxic organic compounds to plant indicates that the risk to humans consuming food crop grown on soils amended with sludge is negligible. Toxic organic compounds are typically present at such low concentrations and/or are largely not available to plants, that they would accumulate only at very low concentrations, if at all, in edible portions of the plants. Few adverse health effects have been found in studies where treated sludge and treated effluent were fed directly to animals. No adverse human acute or chronic toxicity effects have been reported resulting from ingestion of food plants grown in soils amended by sludges or crops irrigated by reclaimed water."

The whole issue of the safety of biosolids reuse is continually reviewed by regulators and scientists around the world and in Ontario, and by the staff of Water Pollution Control. Toronto staff and plants have been involved in several studies to increase world knowledge of the presence, fate and safety of metals and toxins in biosolids. These and other studies conducted around the world suggest that current biosolids use practices provide significant agronomic benefits with very little risk to human or animal health. We are developing further studies in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Environment Canada to provide additional local data on the fate of metals and toxic organics on agricultural fields receiving biosolids.

It should also be noted that the majority of municipalities in North America and Ontario currently apply their biosolids on agricultural land and have been doing so for several decades. Many of the foods we eat now have already been grown or raised on biosolids amended soils.

The recent suspicion of Nonylphenols, and other synthetic oestrogenic compound, being harmful to the environment, is an emerging issue that we are following closely. Nonylphenols are non-ionic surfactants used in cleaning products (soaps), paint, plastics, and the manufacture of other chemicals. As early as 1994, Metro Works was involved in the development of analytical techniques for the measurement of Nonylphenol in wastewater and sludges (published in Analytical Chemistry). We have also taken part in a study to determine the concentrations of Nonylphenols in Ontario wastewater treatment plant effluents and biosolids. If Nonylphenols are found to present a significant risk to the environment then the appropriate response will be to eliminate these compounds from industrial discharges entering the City sewers.

Conclusions:

This report is supplemental to the report of June 16, 1998 which was before the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of June 17, 1998. To establish the 100 per cent beneficial reuse of biosolids at the MTP, it will be necessary to implement the recommendations contained in this report along with those contained in the amended June 16, 1998 report.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director

Water Pollution Control Division

Telephone (416) 392-8230

Fax (416) 397-0908

E-Mail bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report is supplemental to the June 16, 1998 report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP) and provides further information as requested by the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of June 17, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implication arising from this report.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A report dated June 16, 1998, was submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of June17, 1998, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The report was adopted by Committee with various amendments and requests for additional information to be submitted to the July 8, 1998 meeting of Council.

Specifically, we were requested to report directly to Council on the following:

(1)Harbour Remediation and Transfer Inc. (HR&T) not be permitted to award any contracts until after the July 8, 1998 Council approval of the selected process; and reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a full report on the process and the selected contractor to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998;

(2)arrange a briefing with regard to HR&T for interested Councillors prior to the meeting of Council on July 8, 1998;

(3)report to Council on July 8, 1998, on the results of the briefing of Councillors, and confirm that he and the staff are fully satisfied with the solution in all aspects, in particular to address the situation at Falconbridge including investigation of the experience to date and on any concerns arising in that community;

(4)Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food studies on the effects of hazardous chemicals in soil and sewage sludge; and

(5)the acreage of mine tailings that is available and capable of receiving lime-treated biosolids, with comments from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE);

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Harbour Remediation and Transfer Inc. Odour Control Project at the 97 Commissioners Street.

On June 29, 1998, staff of the Water and Wastewater Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department met with officials of HR&T and their consultants, Zorix Consultants, Inc., to review the concept for the odour control project for HR&T's facility located at 97 Commissioners Street.

Following our review of the material presented, we have advised HR&T in writing that in general we are satisfied with the project scope and that we continue to be supportive of the project subject to the certain conditions.

These conditions, for the most part, follow from the Agreement dated July 9, 1997 between HR&T and Metropolitan Toronto Council and are summarized below:

-reimbursement of HR&T by the City shall be based on certified actual costs to a maximum of $2 million dollars and shall occur after installation of the equipment and issuance of a valid Certificate of Approval by the MOE, for the odour control works at 97 Commissioners Street;

-all contractors and consultants to be used by HR&T as well as the form of their retainer and the scope of the odour control works, work plans and proposals must be approved by the Department in advance of any work commencing;

-HR&T must agree to operate and maintain the odour control works in accordance with all operational specifications, provide remote monitoring of its performance to the Main Treatment Plant as well as providing the City with a permanent performance record;

-the maximum amount of biosolids that may be supplied to HR&T by the City will not exceed 15,000 dry tonnes per year; and

-no further financial support, above those amounts already approved by Council, will be provided by the City.

A briefing for interested Councillors was conducted by Zorix Consultants on July 3, 1998 at which the overall project concept was presented.

Falconbridge Odour Concerns.

We have contacted Falconbrdge's Mr. Glenn Hall and the MOE's environmental officer for this project; Mr. Rick Bradely. They have both indicated that there have been no public odour complaints as a result of the use of the HR&T processed biosolids on the mine tailings test site in Falconbridge. There was some opposition from the staff applying the biosolids, when they first contacted the biosolids, as they were not expecting the odours encountered while handling the material. They have since put in place procedures to satisfactorily minimize the odours during the biosolids application. Their groundwater monitoring to date has not shown any negative effects from the use of the biosolids. They are prepared to proceed with the project.

Application of Alkaline Treated Biosolids to Mine Tailings.

On the request of the former Metro staff, Environment Canada is considering financial support of the Biosolids Alkaline Stabilization Technology Demonstration Project carried out by HR&T utilizing the MTP sludges. Environment Canada is willing to support the project under their Great Lakes 2000 Program, based on a potential of the technology for remediation of many mine tailings across Canada. However, Environment Canada's final decision concerning the support is pending completion of the HR&T Odour Control Improvement Project.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett

Director

Water Pollution Control Division

Telephone (416) 392-8230

Fax (416) 397-0908

E-Mail bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)

3

Blue Box Container Material Processing Contract

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause, by:

(1)striking out the recommendation of the Works and Utilities Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that the report dated July9,1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, entitled 'Award of Contract for a Blue Box Material Recovery Facility', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be given authority to enter into a contract with Miller Paving Limited, carrying on business as Miller Waste Systems, for:

(a)the design and construction of a Blue Box Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station at a capital cost not to exceed $4.7million after the municipal GST rebate (which amount includes a contingency allowance of $110,000.00 for approved extra work); and

(b)the operation of the facility for a four-year period, in accordance with the Operating Price Proposal Form submitted as part of Miller Waste Systems' proposal dated June, 1997;

such contract to be in accordance with the Request for Proposals and the Proposal submitted, modified as set out in this report, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(2)subject to finalization of an agreement as set out in Recommendation No. (1), R. Cave and Associates Limited be engaged to supervise site construction and monitor contractor performance at a cost not to exceed $140,000.00 after the municipal GST rebate;"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, during the construction phase of the project, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in co-operation with the Ward Councillors, be requested to develop a residential public consultation process.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated June 16, 1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1)quickly take steps to develop an immediate strategy to enhance the visual appearance and odour control at the Commissioners Street facility; and

(2)submit a report to the Committee on alternative material processing capacity.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (June 16, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek authority not to proceed with the finalization of a contract for either the supply of Blue Box container material processing capacity, or the design, construction and operation of a Blue Box Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that staff be authorized not to proceed with the finalization of a contract for either the supply of Blue Box container material processing capacity, or the design, construction and operation of a Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on September 24 and 25, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted, with amendment, Clause No. 3 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, headed "Selection of Expanded Blue Box Material Processing Capacity". This confidential joint report from the Acting Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Works for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, recommended, in part, that the Commissioner of Metro Works be given authority to enter into negotiations to contract for the design, construction and operation of a Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station (Dufferin MRF).

Discussion and Justification:

In recent months, there has been considerable discussion concerning the possibility of a deposit/return system for wine and liquor containers. With this in mind, staff undertook to review alternative waste management scenarios that would enable the City to meet its current Blue Box container processing requirements and, at the same time, provide the necessary processing flexibility to adjust to substantial changes in material composition that might arise as the result of a deposit/return system. Unfortunately, at this time, we do not know whether a deposit/return system for beverage containers will be put into effect in the near future. The implementation of such a system would have a significant impact on our Blue Box container material processing requirements. As such, we feel that it would not be prudent to enter into any long-term material processing contracts, including execution of the Miller Waste Systems contract for the design, construction and operation of a Blue Box MRF at the Dufferin Transfer Station until we know the outcome surrounding the implementation of a deposit/return system.

Conclusion:

Until we know more about the likelihood of a deposit/return system, it is recommended that staff be authorized not to proceed with the finalization of a contract for either the supply of Blue Box container material processing capacity, or, the design, construction and operation of a Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

Staff will monitor the issues surrounding deposit/return and will report back to the Works and Utilities Committee by January 1999, or earlier, to recommend a preferred course of action with respect to the supply of Blue Box container material processing capacity.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock, Senior Manager - Waste Diversion and Planning

Solid Waste Management Division, Metro Hall

Phone: (416) 392-4715; Fax: (416) 392-4754

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

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a confidential report dated June 16, 1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the Blue Box container material processing contract, a copy of which has been forwarded to all Members of Council under confidential cover.

Mr. Blair McArthur, Vice-President, and Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems, and Mr. Ivan Fleischmann, Miller Thomson, Barristers and Solicitors, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee, in camera, in connection with the foregoing matter and filed a confidential submission with respect thereto.

(City Council on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 9, 1998) from the General Manager - Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek authority to enter into a contract with Miller Waste Systems for the design, construction and operation of a Blue Box Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposed Blue Box Material Recovery Facility has a total capital cost of $4.84 million after municipal GST rebate, including consulting fees and contingencies.

Financing of $6.6 million has been approved under Project C-SW004-Recycling Facilities, of which $4.84 million is now required. The facility is projected to be operational in the third quarter of 1999. The operating cost of the facility will be incorporated into the 1999 Works Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be given authority to enter into a contract with Miller Paving Limited, carrying on business as Miller Waste Systems, for:

(a)the design and construction of a Blue Box Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station at a capital cost not to exceed $4.7 million after the municipal GST rebate (which amount includes a contingency allowance of $110,000.00 for approved extra work); and

(b)the operation of the facility for a four year period in accordance with the Operating Price Proposal Form submitted as part of Miller Waste Systems' proposal dated June 1997.

such contract to be in accordance with the Request for Proposals and the Proposal submitted, modified as set out in this report, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(2)subject to finalization of an agreement as set out in Recommendation No. (1), R. Cave and Associates Limited be engaged to supervise site construction and monitor contractor performance at a cost not to exceed $140,000.00 after the municipal GST rebate.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on June 17, 1998, had before it a report (June 16, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, recommending that staff be authorized not to proceed with the finalization of a contract for either the supply of Blue Box container material processing capacity, or the design, construction and operation of a Blue Box Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

The Committee:

1. recommended to Council the adoption of the aforementioned report; and
2. requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(a)quickly take steps to develop an immediate strategy to enhance the visual appearance and odour control at the Commissioner Street facility; and

(b)submit a report to the Committee on alternative material processing capacity.

Discussion and Justification:

Following the June 17, 1998, meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee, Works and Emergency Services staff met with Miller Waste Systems representatives to discuss, without prejudice, alternative processing options.

The outcome of these discussions has resulted in the following proposal:

(1)Miller Waste Systems will design and construct a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Dufferin Transfer Station with a capacity of 26,000 tonnes per year at a cost of $4.7 million after GST rebate.

Miller will operate the facility in accordance with the Operating Price Proposal Form submitted as part of their proposal dated June 1997 for a four-year period, with no extensions.

Staff have completed a financial and operational analysis of this proposal and have determined that:

(1)construction of this smaller capacity Dufferin MRF results in a total Blue Box System cost savings of at least $136,000.00 per year, compared to system costs associated with the original 40,000 tonne per year Dufferin MRF;

(2)processing a minimum of 20,000 tonnes per year of material through the Dufferin MRF will allow the City to reduce tonnage processed at the Commissioners MRF back to its original design capacity of 16,000 tonne per year, thereby reducing excessive wear and tear on the facility and reducing outside storage of Blue Box material;

(3)while the total system costs associated with the operation of the Dufferin MRF are approximately $388,000.00 per year higher than the status quo processing scenario utilizing the Commissioners MRF and Metro Waste Paper processing capacity, the status quo scenario results in unacceptably high tonnages processed at the Commissioners MRF (and the resulting high levels of outside material storage), and does not provide for spare processing capacity to accommodate increases in Blue Box container material tonnages in future years; and

(4)even in the event of the implementation of a deposit return system for liquor and wine containers, the utilization of the small capacity Dufferin MRF and the Commissioners MRF results in the lowest cost long term processing scenario.

It is also proposed that the consultants for the Request for Proposals process, R. Cave and Associates Limited, be retained at a cost not to exceed $140,000.00 after municipal GST rebate to provide contract administration and construction supervision services.

Conclusions:

Based on the analysis discussed in this report, it is recommended that the City of Toronto proceed with construction of a 26,000 tonne per year Blue Box Material Recovery Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock

Sr. Manager - Waste Diversion & Planning

Solid Waste Management Division

Metro Hall

Phone: (416) 392-4715

Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: Andy_Pollock@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)

4

Class Action - Keele Valley Landfill Site

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June2, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee and Council of the status of the class action lawsuit initiated by John Hollick, a resident of Maple, with respect to the operations of the Keele Valley Landfill Site and to obtain ratification of steps taken to obtain leave to appeal and to appeal from the decision to certify the action.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council ratify steps taken by any staff to obtain leave to appeal the decision to certify this action, and to authorize the appeal.

Council Reference/Background/History:

By Clause No. 7 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, adopted by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting of September 24 and 25, 1997, the Metropolitan Solicitor was authorized to continue to represent the Metropolitan Corporation in this action, and to retain such experts as may be required for the certification process up to a maximum of $100,000.00.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, certification from the Court is needed in order to proceed with a class action. Mr. Justice J.H. Jenkins of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) heard the certification motion in Newmarket on February 25 and 26, 1998. Jenkins J. released his decision on March 30, 1998, certifying the action except for the claim for injunctive relief and claims for damages under the Family Law Act.

Leave to appeal must be filed with the Court within seven days of a decision to certify. Further, motions for leave to appeal are brought forward on an expedited basis. Accordingly, my staff, in consultation with the staff of Works and Emergency Services, took the steps necessary to protect the interests of the City of Toronto.

A motion seeking leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was filed, and the motion was heard by Mr.Justice Archie Campbell of the Divisional Court in Toronto on May 11, 1998.

Campbell J. granted leave to appeal the decision of Jenkins J. to the Divisional Court. In his reasons, Campbell J. stated that:

Having regard to the applicant's arguments about the lack of commonality within the proposed class, the lack of clearly identifiable common characteristics, the lack of any strong substratum of common fact, the lack of any clear link between the site and the proposed group, the alternative remedies available...and the lack of precision in defining common issues, the correctness of the decision is open to serious debate...

Campbell J. also issued a stay of proceedings so no further steps would be taken by the plaintiff until the appeal is determined. The plaintiff had intended to notify some 30,000 residents in the area around the landfill of the lawsuit.

The appeal is scheduled to be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court on September 28, 1998.

Conclusions:

After the appeal is determined, further reports will be brought forward as required.

Contact Names:

George S. Monteith, 392-8062

Albert H. Cohen, 392-8041

Graham Rempe, 392-2887.

5

Water Main - Jane Street Between

Lawrence Avenue West and Harding Avenue

(Ward 6 - North York Humber)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's authorization for the construction of a sub-trunk water main on Jane Street from Lawrence Avenue West to Harding Avenue, and to allocate the necessary monies from the City's Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund.

Source of Funds:

Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund (North York).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to design, tender and administer the construction of a 300 mm diameter sub-trunk water main on Jane Street from Lawrence Avenue West to Harding Avenue at an estimated cost of $350,000.00, funded from the Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund;

(2)the tendering for the construction of the proposed 300 mm diameter water main in Recommendation No. (1) above be subject to either the zoning by-law coming into force for the commercial development proposed by Loblaws at 1675 Jane Street (File UDZ-97-49) or registration of the plan of subdivision by Romeo DiBattista in Trust (File UDSB-1232) at 665Trethewey Drive, whichever comes first; and

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

Discussion:

To provide adequate water pressure and flows for the plan of subdivision at 665 Trethewey Drive by Romeo DiBattista in Trust (File UDSB-1232) and the proposed commercial development at 1675Jane Street by Loblaws Limited (File UDZ-97-49), a 300 mm diameter sub-trunk water main on Jane Street from Lawrence Avenue West to Harding Avenue was identified as being required by both the City and the consulting engineer responsible for the engineering design for the plan of subdivision.

Currently, there is an existing 300 mm diameter water main on Jane Street from Harding Avenue southerly towards Trethewey Drive and from Lawrence Avenue northerly. The proposed commercial development at 1675 Jane Street, located between Lawrence Avenue West and Harding Avenue, is not serviced with a water main along the Jane Street frontage.

The owner, Loblaws Limited, at 1675 Jane Street, has made an application to the City to amend the existing zoning by-law to permit a commercial development. The applicant on behalf of Loblaws has advised the City that it is the intention of Loblaws to proceed as soon as permits are available, and given the nature of the construction, it is anticipated the construction of the development would be completed within six months of commencement. Currently, the zoning by-law for this development is not in effect.

The proposed plan of subdivision (File UDSB-1232) at 665 Trethewey Drive was draft approved by City Council on April 16, 1998. The applicant's consulting engineers have advised that the engineering design for the municipal servicing of the subdivision plan is being prepared for submission to the City for review and approval. The applicant has advised that they anticipate to execute a subdivision agreement with the City in the near future.

The construction of a 300 mm diameter sub-trunk water main on Jane Street between Harding Avenue and Lawrence Avenue will provide adequate water pressures and flows to developments along Jane Street south of Lawrence Avenue and on Trethewey Drive east of Jane Street including the two above-noted developments. The cost of the proposed water main on Jane Street from Lawrence Avenue and Harding Avenue is estimated at $350,000.00 and can be funded from the Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund. There are sufficient funds in the Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund to finance this work.

Conclusion:

It is proposed to install a 300 mm diameter sub-trunk water main on Jane Street from Lawrence Avenue West to Harding Avenue in order to provide adequate water pressure and flows to developments along Jane Street and Trethewey Drive. In order to provide timely delivery of the infrastructure required for the two proposed developments, the tendering and construction of the proposed water main should be subject to either the zoning by-law coming into force for the development proposed at 1675 Jane Street (File UDZ-97-49) or the registration of the subdivision plan at 665 Trethewey Drive (File UDSB-1232). The work estimated at $350,000.00 can be funded from the Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund.

Contact:

S. Bertoia, P.Eng., Director of Engineering

Tel: (416)-395-6235, Fax: (416)-395-0349

EMail: sbertoia @ city.north-york.on.ca.

(A copy of the map appended to the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of June 17, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

Restoration and Maintenance Works Within

Watercourse South of Citation Drive

from Bayberry Crescent to Burbank Drive

(Ward 12 - Seneca Heights)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To request $300,000.00 funding for restoration and maintenance works in the watercourse south of Citation Drive from Bayberry Crescent to Burbank Drive.

Source:

From the 1998 Capital Budget Item Sanitary and Storm Sub-Trunk Sewers (North York).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an amount of $300,000.00 be authorized for restoration and maintenance works required within the watercourse (Citation Drive) from Bayberry Crescent to Burbank Drive in North York's easement;

(2)the funding be from the 1998 Capital Budget Item for Sanitary and Storm Sub-Trunk Sewers (North York); and

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

Background:

The section of watercourse between Bayberry Crescent and Burbank Drive, parallel to Citation Drive, is in a state where restoration and maintenance repairs are necessary. The length of this watercourse is approximately 340m and is located on an easement in favour of North York. This Department has recently received numerous complaints from residents of hazardous conditions in their rear lots especially during the storm events.

In 1996, the City of North York tendered the construction to restore the upstream section of this watercourse parallel to Citation Drive from Bayview Avenue to Bayberry Crescent. Over the years, the rip-rap work that was placed in the watercourse had collapsed due to age and continuing current action of the storm water. Conditions had deteriorated to the point where it became a hazard and a danger to the houses backing onto the watercourse. The works constructed in 1996 included the stabilization of the creek bank with gabions and armourstone, concreted riverstone channel, rebuilt inlet head wall and re-vegetation.

The Works Department has estimated that it would cost $300,000.00 to restore the watercourse from Bayberry Crescent to Burbank Drive with the same type of construction methods as previously performed on the section of watercourse between Bayview Avenue and Bayberry Crescent. It is proposed to fund this work from the 1998 Budget Item for Sanitary and Storm Sub-Trunk Sewers. There are sufficient funds to carry out the works on the Citation Drive watercourse.

Conclusion:

It is proposed to restore the watercourse parallel to Citation Drive between Bayberry Crescent to Burbank Drive to address local residents' concern of hazardous conditions during storm events. The estimated cost of $300,000.00 is available from the 1998 Capital Budget item for Sanitary and Storm Sub-trunk Sewers (North York).

Contact Name and Address:

Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering

Tel. No. 416-395-6235; Fax No. 416-395-0349

E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca.

(A copy of the sketch appended to the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of June 17, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Quotation for Liquid Chlorine

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause to provide that:

(1)the period of the contract shall be 12 months after all of the empty cylinders belonging to the present suppliers are removed from all of the City yards; and

(2)the commencement date of the contract shall be determined by the City Auditor.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated June 16, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending the period of the contract to end on June 30, 1999; and

(2)that in the event the market prices for chlorine change for the suppliers in 1999, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back to the Works and Utilities Committee on the impact to the suppliers.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the entire matter and the issue of pricing to the City Auditor, with a request that he submit a report to the appropriate committee on the issue of chemical pricing.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following joint report (June 16, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the Request for Quotation for the supply and delivery of liquid chlorine, used as a disinfecting agent in drinking water by the Water Supply Division at the F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant, the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant, the Island Filtration Plant, and the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant; and for chlorination of final effluent by the Water Pollution Control Division at the Humber Treatment Plant, the Highland Creek Treatment Plant and the Main Treatment Plant, for the period ending December 31, 1998, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request the authority to award a contract to the recommended bidders.

Funding Sources:

Funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the quotations as noted below for the supply and delivery of liquid chlorine, used as a disinfecting agent in drinking water by the Water Supply Division at the F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant, the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant, the Island Filtration Plant, and the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant; and for chlorination of final effluent by the Water Pollution Control Division at the Humber Treatment Plant, the Highland Creek Treatment Plant and the Main Treatment Plant, for the period ending December 31, 1998, in accordance with specifications, be accepted, being the lowest quotations received:

(a)Netchem Incorporated for approximately 1,165 tonnes in 907.2 kg containers in the amount of $1,115,662.25 including Goods and Services Tax and all other charges (Ontario Retail Sales Tax exempt); and

(b)Prairiechem Incorporated for approximately 336 tonnes in 49.89 tonne rail cars in the amount of $152,796.00 including Goods and Services Tax and all other charges (Ontario Retail Sales Tax exempt);

(2)the appropriate officials be authorized to complete the necessary contract documents; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submit a further report to the next meeting of this Committee with regard to a possible revision to the period of the contract.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Eleven firms were invited to submit quotations; five bids were received as summarized below for the supply and delivery of liquid chlorine, used as a disinfecting agent in drinking water by the Water Supply Division at the F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant, the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant, the Island Filtration Plant, and the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant; and for chlorination of final effluent by the Water Pollution Control Division at the Humber Treatment Plant, the Highland Creek Treatment Plant and the Main Treatment Plant, for the period ending December 31, 1998, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following is a summary of the prices submitted for the supply and delivery of Liquid Chlorine,

Quotation No. 6606-97-00309:

(A) approximately 1,165 tonnes in 907.2 kg containers

(B) approximately 336 tonnes in 49.89 tonne rail cars

Price Per Tonne, Delivered,

Excluding Taxes *

Firm Name(A)(B)

Netchem Incorporated$ 895.00No Quote

Welland Chemical Limited$1,040.00No Quote

HCI Stanchem Incorporated$1,040.00No Quote

Prairiechem IncorporatedNo Quote$ 425.00

PCI Chemicals Canada IncorporatedNo Quote$ 427.60**

* Above prices are subject to 7 percent Goods and Services Tax, Ontario Retail Sales Tax Exempt.

** Adjusted price including demurrage charge (which is incurred when rail cars are retained by the Works Department for longer than 15 days).

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has evaluated the quotations and advises that considering the average retention time of 47.6 days per rail car (based on 1997 figures), the actual price from PCI Chemicals Canada Incorporated would be $427.60 per tonne which includes the bid price of $395.00 per tonne for the supply and delivery of chlorine and $32.60 per tonne demurrage charge on the rail car and would therefore be higher than Prairiechem Incorporated's bid of $425.00 per tonne.

As a first time bidder for the supply of chlorine to the Works Department, Netchem's ability to deliver with emphasis on product quality, safety and security of supply needed to be fully assessed. Concurrent with the evaluation of the quotations received for the supply of chlorine, unusual problems were noted in equipment used in the application of sulphur dioxide at the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant and the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant. The product used at the time of this problem had been supplied by Netchem Inc. With full recognition that the chlorine proposed for supply by Netchem is a different product from a different manufacturer, the importance of fully investigating any new sources of supply was nevertheless highlighted, given the severe consequences of any compromise in chlorine feed to public health. The impact of sulphur dioxide feed problems would be a more noticeable chlorinous taste in the treated water whereas chlorine feed problems may result in inadequate disinfection of water. This due diligence led to further unfortunate but necessary delays in recommending a supplier for our 1998 requirement. As a result, it is anticipated that deliveries from the recommended supplier would not start prior to the middle of June 1998, and a revised estimate of annual requirements is shown in this report.

The period stated in the Request for Quotation for this requirement was for the year 1998, a twelve-month period ending December 31, 1998, which is the typical length of the contract awarded for this requirement. Given the circumstances outlined above, further review is necessary to determine if the contract period and the corresponding quantities of this commodity contracted for, should be revised to reflect the delays in evaluation as detailed above. This matter will be reviewed with staff of Works, Purchasing and Materials Management and Legal Services, and a further report will be submitted to the next meeting of this Committee in this regard.

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

Conclusions:

This report requests authority for the appropriate officials to complete the necessary contract documents for the supply and delivery of liquid chlorine, used as a disinfecting agent in drinking water by the Water Supply Division at the F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant, the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant, the Island Filtration Plant, and the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant; and chlorination of final effluent by the Water Pollution Control Division at the Humber Treatment Plant, the Highland Creek Treatment Plant and the Main Treatment Plant for the period ending December 31, 1998, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department to the lowest bidders, Netchem Incorporated in 907.2 kg containers in the amount of $1,115,662.25 including Goods and Services Tax and all other charges (Ontario Retail Sales Tax exempt), and Prairiechem Incorporated in rail cars in the amount of $152,796.00 including Goods and Services Tax and all other charges (Ontario Retail Sales Tax exempt).

Contact Names:

Lou PaganoHiroshi Taniguchi

Director, Purchasing andDirector, Water Supply Division

Materials Management DivisionTelephone: 392-8220

Telephone: 392-7312

--------

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:

(1)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. Jassie Khurana, Netchem Inc., expressing concerns with respect to the delay in the award of the contract for the supply of liquid chlorine to Netchem Inc.; and

(2)(June 17, 1998) from Mr. Harv Beazley, Regional Sales Manager (Ontario), HCI Stanchem Inc., stating that there are serious omissions within the report respecting the quotation for liquid chlorine supply.

Mr. Paul Khurana, President, and Mr. Jassie Khurana, Government Relations, Netchem Inc., appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

8

Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, with the understanding that the subject agreement may be changed in the future as a result of the implementation of any options arising from the report requested from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services with respect to suspension of the discharge of waste to sewers during heavy rainfall events:

Purpose:

To allow Canada Custom Slaughtering Inc. to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting them, for payment of a surcharge fee, to discharge overstrength effluent which is amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 157 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $7.5 million per year in additional treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly offset the cost of operation of our treatment plants. This agreement will result in cost recovery of $18,253.76 per year and combined retroactive payment of $46,834.75.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we be authorized to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with Canada Custom Slaughtering Inc., 2306 St. Clair Avenue West, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On November 9, 1989, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 16 of TheWorks Committee, authorized execution of agreements with industries, permitting them to discharge wastewater in excess of the limits set out under By-law No. 153-89, providing that the overstrength discharges are amenable to treatment at our treatment plants. Industries are required to pay for the additional cost of treatment above the limit of the by-law.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Canada Custom Slaughtering Inc. is an abattoir that discharges an industrial waste which results in the need for an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement under Metropolitan Toronto By-law No.153-89. In 1997, it advised this Department that it has been operating from these premises since June 1, 1995. The company has been notified of the annual charges to be levied under an Industrial Waste Agreement which would be in effect from June 1, 1995. The company has signified its agreement to the amount of the assessment and its effective date. A payment plan satisfactory to the Commissioner for repaying of the arrears totalling $46,834.75, made up of $10,337.23 for 1995, $18,253.76 for 1996, and $18,243.76 for 1997 accumulated to date, in addition to payment of the regular industrial waste agreement invoices, will be included in the agreement.

The type of wastes generated by the industry listed below is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants. This industry has been notified of the annual charge to be levied, and they have signified agreement to the amount of the assessment:

The alternative to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements would be to require the industry to comply with the Sewer Use By-law limits for B.O.D. and suspended solids, by the addition of effluent pretreatment equipment. This would be an impossibility for many companies due to financial and/or space limitations. Those industries that could afford to install pretreatment systems may have problems with odours or upsets. The Ministry of the Environment acknowledges the need for surcharge agreements in their Model Sewer Use By-law (1988).

Conclusions:

The overstrength effluents from the above industry are organic in nature, biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

In accordance with section 5 of our Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89, an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement should be established with the above industries to provide a mechanism by which the overstrength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for B.O.D. can be discharged on a fee basis.

Contact Name:

Mr. V. Lim, Chief Engineer - Environmental Services

Water Pollution Control Division

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

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

9

Compliance Program with Monetary Concession -

Nu-Way Potato Products Limited

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To issue a Compliance Program with monetary concession to Nu-Way Potato Products Limited to allow them to pay 50 percent of the increase to the existing agreement for 2 years, in order to facilitate the installation of an on-site pretreatment system.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 157 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $7.5 million per year in additional treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly offset the cost of the operation of our treatment plants. Nu-way Potato Products Limited's new annual surcharge is $17,066.36 per quarter, an increase of $7,645.62 over their old surcharge of $9,420.74 per quarter. By allowing the company to pay at a reduced rate of 50 percent of the increase of $7,645.62 per quarter would mean a reduction in revenue of $15,291.24 per year for a total of $30,582.48 for two years.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a Compliance Program with monetary concession be granted to Nu-Way Potato Products Limited, as described herein, to allow for payment of their re-assessed surcharge less 50 percent of the increase for two years, subject to Nu-Way Potato Products Limited's investment of the avoided surcharge payment in the purchase and installation of an on-site pretreatment system.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On November 9, 1989, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 16 of TheWorks Committee, authorized execution of agreements with industries, permitting them to discharge wastewater in excess of the limits set out under By-law No. 153-89, providing that the overstrength discharges are amenable to treatment at our treatment plants. Industries are required to pay for the additional cost of treatment above the limit of the by-law.

Section 6 of this by-law allows the owner of industrial premises to submit to the Commissioner of Works a program to prevent, or to reduce and control the discharge of wastewater into the sewer system. The Commissioner of Works may then issue an approval known as a "Compliance Program" to the person who submitted the program. The person to whom a Compliance Program has been issued shall not be prosecuted under the by-law during the period within which the Compliance Program is applicable, provided that the person complies fully with the terms of the Compliance Program.

On August 10 and 11, 1994, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 12 of Report No. 14 of The Works Committee, authorized the Works Department to discuss modifications to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements and Compliance Program policies with existing and potential surcharge companies to promote and encourage improvements in on-site treatment and source reduction.

The policy approved by Metropolitan Council was to allow industries facing significantly increased surcharge for new agreements or amendments to existing agreements to apply to be allowed to avoid up to 50 percent of the payment of the new agreement or the increase to the existing agreement, for up to three years if they commit under a Compliance Program to invest the avoided surcharge payment for specific improvements to their on-site pretreatment system.

There have been two Compliance Programs with monetary concession approved by Metropolitan Council to date.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Recently, several companies have complained that their new surcharge assessment or increased surcharge assessment on existing agreements are creating financial hardship and have expressed an unwillingness to pay the surcharge. These companies would like to reduce these costs, however, they would have to install treatment facilities which would add further costs.

Recognizing that some industries are really facing financial hardship, we recommend that industries facing significant increases in surcharges for new agreements or amendment to existing agreements could apply for a surcharge reduction of 50 percent of the new agreement or the increase to the existing agreement, for up to three years if they commit under a Compliance Program to invest the reduced surcharge payment for specific pollution control equipment. In this way, the discharger benefits in the long term because they permanently reduce their surcharge costs. We also benefit in that more treatment capacity is free for additional development.

The following conditions must be met to be considered for a Compliance Program with monetary concessions:

(1)the applicant must commit in writing, in the form of a Compliance Program, to reduce their waste loading by at least 50 percent by a specified date;

(2)the reduction in surcharge could be for a period of between one and three years, depending on the time required to complete the installation of pretreatment equipment;

(3)an applicant can only be granted one Compliance Program with monetary concession per lifetime; and

(4)at the end of the Compliance Program period, the companies who are unsuccessful in reducing their waste loading to within by-law limits must resume paying surcharge based on the actual waste loading at that time.

The Region of Niagara has a similar policy of granting a discharges "Program Approval" (which is similar to our Compliance Program) with monetary concessions. The concession has been as high as 50 percent for a period of one year. The reduction is based on the size of the surcharge compared to the spending the discharger plans to spend in effecting a reduction in both the hydraulic and contaminant load to the municipal sewage treatment system.

The type of waste generated by Nu-Way Potato Products Limited is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our Main Treatment Plant.

On May 21, 1998, Nu-Way Potato Products Limited through its consultant, Venerus International Purification Inc., submitted an application to have the industrial waste surcharge amount reduced in accordance with the policy adopted by Metropolitan Council on August 10 and 11, 1994.

The company had retained Venerus International Purification Inc. in Guelph to undertake a study to evaluate their production processes and develop an effluent solids reduction process, procure, construct and operate a waste treatment system to bring their effluent contaminants down by 50percent by December 31, 1999. They have provided us with the following schedule for their Compliance Program.

Compliance ScheduledScheduledProject

Program ActivitiesStart Date Completion DateCosts ($)

(a)Select ConsultantJanuary 1998March 199810,000.00

(b)Investigation of PlantMarch 1998June 1998 1,000.00

Conditions

(c)Treatability StudiesJuly 1998October 199820,000.00

(d)Design of SystemNovember 1998February 1999 1,000.00

(e)Contractor SelectionMarch 1999April 199920,000.00

(+Deposit on Equipment)

(f)Commence ConstructionMay 1999August 199920,000.00

(2nd payment)

(g)Pretreatment SystemSeptember 1999December 199920,000.00

Start-up

(h)Operating ManualSeptember 1999December 1999 1,000.00

Preparation

(i)Commissioning & OperatorSeptember 1999December 1999 5,000.00

Training

Nu-Way Potato Products Limited is currently under a surcharge agreement with the City. The surcharge is based on an average suspended solids (S.S.) concentration of 14,490 mg/L at an annual discharge of 8,334 cubic metres. The average biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) concentration is 4,007 mg/L. The estimated annual S.S. and B.O.D. loading from the facility before the proposed treatment are 120,760 kg per year and 33,400 kg per year, respectively. With the assumption that the pretreatment will reduce the S.S. and B.O.D. concentrations by 50 percent, the estimated loading for S.S. and B.O.D. after pretreatment will be 60,380 kg per year and 16,700 kg per year, respectively.

Conclusions:

In accordance with section 6, of our Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89 and the policy adopted by Metropolitan Council on August 10 and 11, 1994, a Compliance Program with monetary concession should be issued to Nu-Way Potato Products Limited to provide a mechanism by which the overstrength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for S.S. and B.O.D. can be discharged on a 50percent reduced fee basis while the company implements further wastewater treatment controls, under the conditions previously stated in this report.

Contact Name:

V. Lim, Chief Engineer - Environmental Services

Water Pollution Control Division

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

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

10

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Utilization of Landfill Gas.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services with a request that he submit a report to the Committee on the deputation by Eastern Power; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor to comment on the timelines which the City would likely have to respect due to the various provincial regulatory processes that would apply to mixed waste recycling projects:

(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Vice-President, Eastern Power, requesting the opportunity to make a brief presentation to the Committee to provide an update on the operations of Eastern Power.

--------

Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Vice-President, Eastern Power, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Agreement for Additional Water Supply

for the Region of York.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following reports until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on July 15, 1998; and having referred the following motion to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Moved by Councillor Layton:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(1)explore with the Commissioner of Urban Development and Planning Services opportunities to address sprawl issues flowing from existing Official Plans through this agreement; and

(2)report to the Committee on:

(I)the progress in considering the proposal by Councillor Layton to meet the Region of York's water needs through conservation investment in Toronto;

(ii)strengthening water efficiency provisions in the proposed agreement in order to lock in requirements and processes to achieve efficiencies in Toronto and in York Region;

(iii)the increased sewage treatment that would result from this agreement, and how such increase would be met;

(iv)a clear outline of the relationship which would result between the City of Toronto and the private sector partner that has been engaged by York Region to supply their water; and

(v)all issues raised during the deputations.":

(i)(June 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater recommending that authority be granted to execute an agreement for the supply of water to the Regional Municipality of York, essentially in accordance with the report provided as an appendix to this report, and that the appropriate officials give effect thereto.

(ii)(June 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater providing information with regard to the Region of York's long-term water supply strategy, and further opportunities for partnership with the City of Toronto; advising that additional infrastructure is required to meet water supply demands as a result of planned growth while incorporating water efficiency measures within the City of Toronto and York Region, and that a Joint Optimization Study will be undertaken in partnership with the Region of York to establish the most effective manner of meeting York Region's long-term water demands; further advising that Toronto staff will be providing input during the Environmental Assessment process for York's Durham West long-term supply alternative; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iii)(June 2, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting the preparation of a new agreement for additional water supply to the Region of York, and responding to the request of the former Metropolitan Council for a report on the implications of the proposal that the agreement with York be in perpetuity; advising that a statutory limitation exists that the contract with York cannot exceed twenty years, and that while there can be further renewal periods upon expiry of the initial and subsequent renewal periods, one or more of the parties would have the discretion to renew the contract or renegotiate; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iv)(May 12, 1998) from the Regional Clerk, Region of York, forwarding a copy of Clause No. 4 contained in Report No. 9 of the Transportation and Works Committee, headed "Aurora, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury Water Servicing Issues", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the Regional Municipality of York on May 7, 1998, together with related Clauses respecting the Region's Long-Term Water Strategy.

(v)(June 15, 1998) from Ms. Jean Martin, East Gwillimbury Watch, respecting the supply of water to the Region of York and issues related to development pressures in the "905" region; and advising that a careful study should be made of the issue before entering into such agreements with York Region.

(vi)(June 16, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association, expressing concern with respect to the supply of water to the Region of York; and requesting that a body be set up to assess the cost and impacts on the City of financing York's expansion before proceeding with any partnership.

--------

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

-Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, and submitted a communication with respect thereto;

-Ms. Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

-Mrs. Lois James, Scarborough, Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Debra Kyles, Kleinburg, Ontario; and

-Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto.

(c)Exemption from Charges for Sewer Improvements.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee:

(April 24, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert, Scarborough Highland Creek, referred by the Chair of the Budget Committee, respecting a request for an exemption from charges for sewer improvements; and requesting that consideration be given to exemptions for such sewer surcharges for homeowners with septic systems.

(d)Household Hazardous Waste Cost-Sharing Model.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management providing information about the formation of an industry-government Steering Committee to develop a cost-sharing model for expenses involved with management of household hazardous waste (HHW) received at municipal depots; advising that through the implementation of the proposed model, the City of Toronto may be able to recuperate a major portion of its expenditures for the off-site treatment of HHW received at its facilities, thus reducing the total cost of its HHW program; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(e)Strategic Action Plan to Reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)

Emissions in the New City of Toronto.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following revised report and communication:

(i)(June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting programs and other initiatives planned for the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, as documented in the Strategic Action Plan for the new City of Toronto, including the City-owned Building Retrofit Program; energy efficiency and conservation standards for new and existing buildings; Better Buildings Partnership; major Works facilities improvements; development of a District Energy System; and land use/transportation initiatives; forwarding a reduction summary for greenhouse gas emissions for 1997; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(ii)(June 17, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Environmental Task Force at its meeting held on June 16, 1998, had before it the report dated June 16, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions; and advising that the Task Force supports the expansion of the former City of Toronto's Strategic Action Plan for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions across the new City of Toronto.

(f)Preferred Respondent to Request for

Proposals for a Mixed Waste Recycling

and Organics Processing Facility.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management advising that following completion of the technical and financial evaluation process, Stone and Webster Canada Ltd., in association with Canada Composting Inc., has been identified as the preferred respondent to the Request for Proposals for a Mixed Waste Recycling and Organics Processing Facility at the Dufferin Transfer Station, and that a report with recommendations for an award of contract will be brought forward to the July 15, 1998 meeting of the Committee; further advising that an initial public meeting was held prior to issuance of the RFP to obtain public input on the project requirements, and a second set of public meetings is planned for June 16, 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(g)Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report; and

(2)requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor develop and submit options for a program which would allow the City to request and/or require industries which discharge waste to the sewers, by defined volume, concentration parameters or thresholds, to suspend discharge during heavy rainfall events in order to reduce lake contamination, and that such report also address the transition stage which would be required to implement such a program, including outreach and education of businesses:

(June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to the request of the Committee at its meeting on May 20, 1998, that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a further report on whether a clause can be inserted in Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements to permit the City to request companies to suspend discharging overstrength effluents at particular times; advising that while the City could pass by-laws to restrict the rights of companies or even homeowners to discharge into the sewer system, there are many legal, practical and economic issues that would have to be considered before any particular provisions could be adopted, and that in particular, a by-law requiring those industries who have entered into Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements to install holding tanks to assist in the combined sewer overflow problem might not be valid; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(h)Consumers Gas - Development and

Maintenance of Below-Ground Infrastructure.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee:

(April 16, 1998) from Mr. Matthew Akman, Municipal Relations, Consumers Gas, requesting the opportunity to present the perspective of Consumers Gas and other major private utilities to the Works and Utilities Committee respecting the development and maintenance of below-ground infrastructure in the City of Toronto, in particular a One-Call-One-Locate system for buried pipe, wires and cable, and improvements in the Road Reinstatement process.

(i)Toronto Hydro - Amalgamation Status Report.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following communication:

(June 10, 1998) from the President and Chief Executive Officer, and Commission Chair, Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, providing a brief synopsis of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission's amalgamation efforts to date, and reporting on the utility's progress in the harmonization of hydro rates across the City and the status of its capital spending and cutbacks; and forwarding a copy of a booklet entitled "Toronto Hydro's Strategic Plan for 1998."

(j)Disposal of Discarded Household Items.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1)arrange a presentation to the Committee at its next meeting, scheduled to be held on July 15, 1998, on locations and other options for disposal of discarded household items, such as clothing, computers, etc., on a regular basis; and

(2)examine the feasibility of disposal of discarded household items at frequent intervals, for example through curbside collection.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, June 17 1998

(Report No. 6 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)