July 9, 1998
To:Works and Utilities Committee
From:A. Bacopoulos
General Manager - Solid Waste Management Services
Subject:Keele Valley Landfill Site - Filling Options
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to review potential utilization of the remaining approved
capacity in the Keele Valley Landfill Site ("Keele Valley"). The report presents three
options for filling Keele Valley to its approved capacity and the associated impacts of each
option. This report also provides an update on the City's environmental assessment planning
process for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no funding implications resulting from this report.
In the body of this report the impacts of the three options for filling Keele Valley are
discussed. A subsequent report will provide more specific detail related to financial matters.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Further to discussions held at the informal meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on
June 18, 1998, this report is being presented to provide information related to the impacts of
three options regarding the filling of Keele Valley. The options are: (1) Status Quo; (2)
Rapid Fill; and (3) Slow Fill. This report also provides information related to our long-term
Environmental Assessment planning process.
Toronto's remaining landfill site, Keele Valley, is located in the City of Vaughan, York
Region. It has been in operation since November 1983. More than 22,000,000 tonnes of
waste have been deposited at the site to date. It is anticipated that the landfill will reach its
volumetric capacity of 33,125,254 m3 by mid-2002, if waste disposal at the site continues at
the current rate.
In the early 1980's during environmental hearings regarding the development of Keele
Valley, the operational site life was forecast to be 20 years. The 20-year forecast was entered
as supporting information to the application for a Certificate of Approval to operate the site.
The expectation of a 20-year operational period was subsequently incorporated into the
York/Metro Toronto Agreement dated May 24, 1983. Through the Agreement an obligation
was made for Toronto to provide York Region with disposal capacity for twenty years (to
July 2004) or until the closure of Keele Valley, whichever occurs last. A Supplementary
Agreement dated June 12, 1996 reinforced the July 2004 disposal obligation of Toronto to
York Region.
In the late 1980's the amount of waste disposed at Toronto's landfills was significantly
higher than at present. In 1989, the total tonnage disposed at Keele Valley was 3,220,300
tonnes. This higher disposal rate created an expectation in the local community that Keele
Valley would be filled by the mid 1990's. In 1991, in recognition that Toronto's landfills
were rapidly reaching their capacity, and in order to provide additional time to plan for
alternate disposal alternatives, the Provincial Government directed Toronto, through a
Minister's Section 29 Report, to design a vertical 'lift' expansion to Keele Valley.
As required by the Minister's Section 29 report, Toronto has provided monthly reports to
Council and to the Region of York and the City of Vaughan forecasting the remaining
capacity at Keele Valley. Since 1995, forecasting has estimated that Keele Valley will reach
capacity sometime in 2002, without the lift at the current rate of receipt of waste. This
regular reporting has given the impression that there is a finality to the forecasted year of
closure of 2002.
As a result of settlement and decomposition of waste, the site experiences annual settlement
equivalent to the volume that would be occupied by approximately 500,000 tonnes of waste
per annum. Hence, the slower the site is filled up the more waste can be placed within the
approved volumetric capacity. Toronto and York Region can take advantage of this to keep
the landfill operating to at least July 2004, which coincides with Toronto's obligation to
York Region for provision of disposal capacity.
Discussion and Justification:
Three landfilling options have been considered to fill the Keele Valley site to its final
capacity: (1) Status Quo; (2) Rapid Fill; and (3) Slow Fill.
Option 1. Status Quo
If current pricing policies remain relatively static and 3Rs programs produce consistent
diversion results, Keele Valley will reach its volumetric capacity in mid-2002. Associated
operating costs will continue to be paid for in part from tipping fees paid by the private
sector and some residential users, and in part from the tax levy. No waste reserve exists to
draw from.
Under the Status Quo option, approximately 1.45 million tonnes of solid waste would be
disposed at Keele Valley per year to mid-2002. Of this amount approximately 360,000
tonnes would be received from the private sector (the private sector refers to the
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional sector). Through our contract with Browning-Ferris
Industries (BFI), approximately 260,000 tonnes of solid waste would be disposed at the
Arbor Hills Landfill in Michigan. This factor also applies to the subsequent two options.
If this option was followed, Toronto would still be obligated to provide York Region with
disposal capacity to July 2004, after the closure of Keele Valley in mid-2002 to July 2004.
York Region would be required to pay the associated costs of new disposal capacity at the
private sector facility. Following the closure of Keele Valley, Toronto would have to
purchase disposal capacity from the private sector at market value.
Option 2. Rapid Fill
Under the "Rapid Fill" option, Toronto would lower its solid waste management (SWM)
fees to attract additional tonnage from the private sector. A reduction in the SWM fee of
approximately ten percent would translate into approximately 150,000 tonnes of additional
private sector waste received annually at Keele Valley.
The advantage of this option is that it brings in significant funds from private sector SWM
fees. However, it reduces the service life of Keele Valley by a year and negates the
advantages of the sites "settling" feature due to compaction and decomposition of waste,
which would help to extend the service life of the site. In addition, following closure
Toronto would begin paying significantly higher disposal costs.
Option 3. Slow Fill
Under the "Slow Fill" option, Toronto would employ pricing policies for SWM fees and
3Rs programs to extend the service life of Keele Valley. By increasing the SWM fee after
1998 there would be a reduction in private sector waste being disposed at Keele Valley.
Coupled with new 3Rs programs and facilities, the service life of Keele Valley could be
extended to mid-2004.
This option utilizes the settling feature of the landfill through compaction and organic
decomposition to extend the service life beyond the current anticipated closure date of
mid-2002 to mid-2004 (in conjunction with new 3Rs programs), which dovetails with the
obligation to provide York Region with disposal capacity.
Under the Slow Fill option there would be a more extensive reliance on the tax levy to
finance operations. Some revenue would still be attained from SWM fees, but at a reduced
level. However, Keele Valley's service life would be extended by approximately two years
and therefore offset the purchase of substantially higher private sector disposal capacity.
Current EA Planning Process for Long-term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity
Works and Emergency Services is currently preparing a draft Environmental Assessment
(EA) Terms of Reference for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity. EA-level planning for
long-term disposal capacity was initiated by the former Metro Toronto Council. The
preparation of a Terms of Reference is a mandatory planning step when undertaking an EA.
The former Metro Council initiated EA-level planning in response to an amendment to Bill
76, the Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act, 1997. The
amendment (known as the "Metro Toronto" waste disposal clause) provides that designated
municipalities (by regulation) cannot proceed to contract out without first submitting an EA
and receiving the Minister's approval to proceed.
Our current EA planning process engages the marketplace to identify new long-term
disposal capacity (i.e., a process of "contracting out"). While Toronto has not been
designated to date, the City could be designated at anytime in the process. We are therefore
proceeding as if designated as a hedge against the possibility of being designated at the latter
part of a non-EA contracting out process.
A comprehensive report regarding the EA planning process was submitted to the February
1998 meeting of Works and Utilities Committee. The report, dated January 29, 1998,
provides information regarding past public sector siting efforts and information about the
current process, which is based on the following four planning principles:
(1)Toronto will turn to the marketplace to identify alternatives.
(2)No generic comparison will be undertaken between landfill and incineration
technologies.
(3)The 3Rs strategy will identify residual needing disposal (set by the former Metro
Toronto Council at 50 percent diversion by 2006).
(4)The consultation process is Toronto-based.
The current EA planning process is designed to have new disposal capacity available by
mid-2002. However, this does not provide for a hearing (if required), or significant delays in
the multiple planning steps, which may include site preparation (approvals and capital
works). A mid-2004 closure date for Keele Valley will provide greater opportunity for the
marketplace to respond to a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals
(RFP), and facilitate EA-level planning.
In order for an EA Terms of Reference to be finalized and submitted to Council for
adoption, followed by submission to the Minister for approval, Council direction is needed
regarding the following issues:
(1)Is the market place approach (which may result in public-private and/or
public-publicpartnerships) a suitable approach to identify and attain new disposal capacity?
(2)Is the inclusion of potential export to the United States an appropriate alternative?
(3)Should Energy from Waste technology (incineration with heat recovery) be included in
the RFQ and RFP, in addition to landfill technology?
(4)Does Council endorse the target of 50 percent 3Rs diversion by 2006?
(5)Is the continuation of EA-level planning agreeable?
(6)Do we wish to collaborate with potential Greater Toronto Area partners through a
dove-tailing of planning processes, in order to combine waste streams and enter into joint
disposal agreements?
The other issue which staff are seeking direction on regards the service life of the Keele
Valley Landfill. This matter is addressed through this report.
It is our intention to submit a report to the September meeting of Works and Utilities
Committee regarding the policy issues listed above. A subsequent report will contain the
draft Terms of Reference for consideration by Committee and Council.
Conclusions:
This report has set impacts related to three options for the potential utilization of the
remaining capacity of Keele Valley. Pricing policies and 3Rs programs can be engaged to
influence the closure date.
If the status quo is maintained, the site is expected to close in mid-2002. Substantially more
expensive private sector disposal capacity will then be required and Toronto will still be
obligated to provide disposal capacity for York Region to July 2004.
If a Rapid Fill option is engaged, the SWM fee will be reduced which will bring in new
revenues from the private sector, but will result in the closure of the site in 2001, resulting in
the need to engage private sector disposal capacity earlier than under the status quo option.
If a Slow Fill option is engaged, revenues from private sector SWM fees will decrease, but
the service life of the site could be extended to mid-2004 due to a reduction in the total
annual amount of disposal, new 3Rs program, and by the settling feature due to compaction
and organic decomposition. Under the Slow Fill option Toronto would off-set the need to
purchase substantially more expensive private sector disposal capacity. This would also
bring the service life of the site to conclusion in correspondence with the 20-year life
expectancy of the site.
It is our intention to discuss the content of this report with staff in the City of Vaughan and
York Region. A subsequent report will provide information related to their positions on the
closure issue.
Contact Name :
Lawson Oates
Manager, EA Co-ordination Branch
Management and Technical Services
City Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-9744
Fax: (416) 392-2974
E-mail: Lawson_Oates@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
A. Bacopoulos
General Manager
Solid Waste Management Services
Barry H. Gutteridge
Commissioner
Works & Emergency Services
(KSH/LJO)LC/ag/ea kvl3
