August 30, 1999

To:Works Committee

From:Barry H. Gutteridge

Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services

Subject:Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process

Results of Stakeholder Review of Draft Evaluation Criteria for the Proven Disposal Services RFP

Purpose:

This report provides an account of the stakeholder consultation activities regarding the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process draft evaluation criteria for the Proven Disposal Services request for proposals ("RFP"). The stakeholder consultation activities were conducted between July 14, 1999 and August 27, 1999, following the submission of a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to Works Committee identifying the qualified Respondents which made submissions under the TIRM Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, City Council adopted a revised TIRM Process schedule contained in the REOI, which it approved for issuance. (The schedule was modified through an approved recommendation to Council at its meeting of July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, in order to facilitate a closer linkage between decision-making on engagement of diversion and disposal services.)

The approved TIRM Process schedule included an engagement of stakeholders following the identification of qualified Respondents at the conclusion of the REOI process, to provide feedback on the draft evaluation criteria for the RFP for Proven Disposal Services.

To facilitate feedback, advertisements inviting comment were placed in newspapers in the communities where the potential sites are located. In addition, a letter dated July 16, 1999, was sent to those on the project mailing list.

To assist stakeholders a consultation package was developed that included:

• a background description of the TIRM Process
• a list of qualified Respondents
• a brief description of the 3 categories (Proven Diversion, Proven Disposal, and New and Emerging Technologies)
• the project schedule
• draft evaluation criteria
• feedback forms

Comments were invited by fax, e-mail, telephone (including a toll-free line) and mail.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The stated purpose of the consultation was to invite comments on the draft evaluation criteria to be applied to the submissions to be received through the RFP for Proven Disposal Services. Specifically, we were seeking feedback on the following draft evaluation criteria:

• Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment (35 points)
• Ontario and GTA Social Benefits(30 points)
• Financial Costs(35 points)

Appendix A (attached) provides a summary of the comments received through the consultation process. Although comments were sought regarding the evaluation criteria, a great number of stakeholders made comments of a general nature. The specific comments regarding the draft evaluation criteria have been listed in the attached summary and corresponding responses have been provided.

The key modification to the evaluation criteria resulting from the consultation process has been the re-introduction of a broader range of priority pollutant categories under the Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment criterion. The following table provides a list of the pollutant categories we are recommending for inclusion in the RFP for Proven Disposal Services and the associated element to be considered in each pollutant category as the indicator of impact.

The emission rates of the priority pollutants listed above, that are associated with proposed waste transport and disposal facility operations, will be used to calculate performance scores, leading to the identification of top-qualified proposals.

Conclusions:

The stakeholder consultation process has provided a mechanism for TIRM Process stakeholders, including those stakeholders living in the vicinity of potential disposal sites, to comment and provide feedback on the draft evaluation criteria for the RFP for Proven Disposal Services.

While most of the feedback we have received was of a general nature and did not focus on the actual draft evaluation criteria, we have proceeded to broaden the list of priority pollutants. The emission rates for each priority pollutant associated with proposed waste transport and disposal facility operations, will be used to calculate performance scores under the Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment evaluation criterion.

Contact Names:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.

Manager, Strategic Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19^th Floor

Phone: (416) 392-9744

Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: lawson_oates@toronto.ca

Tracey Ehl Harrison, MCIP, RPP

Public Consultation Co-ordinator

Technical Support Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-6698

Toll Free: 1-800-465-2974

FAX: (416) 392-2974

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

     Angelos BacopoulosBarry H. Gutteridge

General ManagerCommissioner

Solid Waste Management ServicesWorks and Emergency Services

LJO/ljo:tracy1.doc

 Appendix A.

 Toronto' Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Stakeholder Consultation Report on Draft Request for Proposal Evaluation Criteria (Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal)

August 27, 1999

Background

The City of Toronto Works & Emergency Services Department undertook a stakeholder consultation process on Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") between July 14, 1999 and August 27, 1999. The stated purpose of this round of consultation was to invite comments on the draft evaluation criteria that are to be applied to the responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) that are received in Category 2 - waste disposal. It should be noted that the draft evaluation criteria were developed as a result of previous consultation efforts on this project.

Method

On July 14, 1999, a staff report was presented at the Works and Utilities Committee regarding the TIRM project which outlined the seven "disposal" respondents who had successfully passed through the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) stage. The following week, advertisements inviting comment on the draft evaluation criteria were placed in newspapers in the communities where the potential sites are located. In addition, a letter dated July 16, 1999 was sent out to those on the project database. This database includes all that have expressed an interest in this project in the past.

To assist stakeholders in understanding the process and commenting on the draft evaluation criteria, a consultation package was developed. This package included the following sections:

Section 1: Background general description of the TIRM process

• staff report, dated July 5, 1999, containing the results of the TIRM request for expressions of interest (REOI)
• the most recent TIRM newsletter

Section 2: Respondents who have qualified through the REOI (all 3 categories: proven diversion, proven disposal, new and emerging technologies)

• a brief technology description (all 3 categories)
• a Respondent contact (all 3 categories)
• potential sites locations (disposal proposals only)

Section 3: Project schedule (taken from the REOI)

Section 4: Disposal RFP Comparative Evaluation Criteria - We want your comments!

• draft evaluation criteria
• feedback forms to make comments.

Comments were invited by fax, e-mail, telephone (including a toll free line), and mail.

Results

During the consultation period, a total of 243 comments were received. These can be broken down geographically as follows.

* In addition, a letter was received from the Deputy Mayor of the Town of Innisfil indicating 817 signatures on a petition in opposition to the AGRA proposal to site an EFW facility in the Town of Innisfil.

Comments: General

Although comments were sought regarding the evaluation criteria, a great number of stakeholders made comments of a general nature. These can be characterized in the following points.

• The export of Toronto's waste outside of the Greater Toronto Area and outside of the country is not appropriate or desirable.
• Waste should be viewed as a resource.
• There is great concern over an increase in truck traffic on local and regional roads and the pollution associated with truck haul.
• The City of Toronto should focus its efforts on strengthening diversion (3Rs) programs.
• Residents in the vicinity of proposed sites are concerned over the local environmental impacts that will result from Toronto's waste being received at the site, including impacts due to landfill/incinerator emissions, health concerns, and increases in truck traffic.
• Many questions and concerns were raised regarding incineration technology and emissions/pollution standards. Toronto's position on incineration was also sought.
• Appreciate opportunity to comment.

Stakeholders also requested clarifications and/or elaboration of consultation staff and the project manager regarding the process being followed by the City.

 Comments: Criteria-related

As noted, this consultation effort was focussed on receiving feedback on the evaluation criteria and their assigned weighting (importance) that will be applied to the responses to the RFP (disposal).

The three comparative evaluation criteria, as distributed, are:

Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment35 points

Ontario and GTA Social Benefits30 points

Financial 35 points

A number of criteria-related suggestions/comments were made by stakeholders. These are noted in the following chart along with the response/resolution proposed by the City's project team.

 

Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment	Response
Toronto needs to include social and environmental criteria.	These have been included through the macro-environmental analysis and the "Ontario and GTA social benefits" evaluation criteria.
Remove references to macro-environmental impacts.	We feel this is an important evaluation criterion, as it provides a means for comparative analysis between proposals.
Should rate a facility on how close it is to being state-of-the-art in order to reduce impacts.	The facility or facilities that will be engaged must have valid and current operating certificate of approval or licence.
Consider micro-environmental impacts due to significant increases in waste received.	The "micro-environmental" on site specific impacts are examined through the siting and approval process. Carried out by Respondents.
Should evaluate ground and surface water impacts.	These are addressed in the site specific approvals process through the application of regulatory regulations.
Traffic safety should be divided into local and regional impacts and should consider the capacity of the system being proposed.	Local traffic impacts are addressed through the site specific approvals process.
Technology which minimizes the impacts on the environment should be selected Should be 65 points (30 macro environmental, 25 micro environmental, 10 traffic safety - 5 GTA, 5 - Ontario).	We will only engage technologies that are licensable and regulated.
Greenhouse gas emissions require comprehensive and valid analysis including methane release, methane recovery, efficiency of energy produced and offsets of electrical, natural gas and oil CO2 emissions, embodied energy saved by reuse/recycle, transportation and processing energy, CO2 from aerobic decomposition, and possibly other factors. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, there are other releases to air, water and soil to be compared. Also beneficial use of materials such as recycling, soil additives, and construction materials have to be seen as displacing resource extraction. Many human health exposures short and long term should likewise be compared. Proposals should demonstrate their adaptability to emerging improvements and opportunities and how continuous improvement will be implemented.	We have broadened the macro-environmental evaluation criteria. Please see the text of the RFP document for details. Our objective is to facilitate a comparative analysis, not re-construct the site specific approvals process.
Noise pollution should be incorporated.	This impact is reviewed through the site specific approvals process.
A higher weighting should be given to "Traffic Safety", as some of the proposals use the highway system which is already nearing saturation. This will lead to a higher rate of accidents, delays, exhaust emissions and waste of human resources.	Relative to other aspects of our proposed evaluation criteria we feel the weighting for "traffic safety" is satisfactory.
Why has this criterion changes compared to earlier set of criteria? How will distance traveled be correlated with safety rates? Traffic safety should be based on travel distance times, the number of trips, the accident rate. This criterion must also account for increases in traffic on already heavily stressed routes. Whose data will be used to calculate this scoring?	We have re-introduced a broadened range of macro-environmental evaluation criteria. We are utilizing a fatality rate as data exists for both truck and rail transport, as provided by regulatory bodies.
In addition to CO2, vehicle exhaust contains other gases such as CO, NOx, SO2 and heavy metals and particulate emissions.	We have broadened the components of the macro-environmental analysis.
The city should evaluate overall impacts of transport and disposal systems on air quality and traffic safety as prime issues.	Impacts on air quality and traffic safety are included in the proposed evaluation criteria.
The current weighting is too skewed towards inconclusive risk of global warming.	We have broadened our macro-environmental criteria.
Health and safety risks posed by long haul transport of waste on over crowded highways warrant closer scrutiny.	The weighting we are proposing for Human Health and Safety related to transportation will provide us with suitable information to conduct a comparative analysis.
Ontario and GTA Social Benefits	Response
Incorporate social costs, job/resident losses, agricultural losses/impacts including disease potential and loss of investment, neighbourhood/individual liability costs including property devaluation, limiting property use, direct financial cost to residents such as pollution testing. More affluent residents leave the area.	These forms of impacts have been/can be raised through the site-specific siting and approvals process.
A new weighting system is proposed: Direct Jobs: 5 points total (GTA - 3, Ontario - 2) Value of Jobs: 5 points (GTA - 3, Ontario - 2) Investment in Goods: 5 points (GTA - 3, Ontario - 2)	We are adjusting the ratio to:GTA - 6 Ontario - 4, from GTA - 7, Ontario 3.
Jobs created in material handling, reuse/recycle products industry, compost supply etc. are important ongoing employment opportunities for Torontonians. Social equity issues should be assessed. Implications for curbside vs. transfer station separation should be analyzed. Reduction issues such as user pay and packaging/container by-laws need to be constantly reviewed and pursued.	These issues will be addressed through the Category 1: Proven Diversion evaluation criteria.
Require definition of "jobs". Jobs created or allocated should be expressed in person years. Are the number of jobs created sufficiently different from the value of those jobs to warrant two different criteria?	The RFP document carries a definition of "jobs". We have not differentiated as to the "value" or they are linked to a solid waste management contract with Toronto.
Revised weighting for this criterion does not reflect where the bulk of the contract costs and investment will occur since all of the disposal locations are outside of the GTA.	We have adjusted the ratio to provide a greater balance. However, it remains higher for related jobs within the GTA or to Toronto taxpayers (and potentially other GTA taxpayers) that will be paying for services.
How will the value of goods purchased for the contract be assessed?	The RFP document will elaborate on this matter.
What time frames are associated with the investments?	The service life of the contract.
This criterion fails to account for social benefits tied to higher price. This should be correlated with the Financial criterion.	We expect Respondents to offer competitive proposals that engage the necessary staff resources. It is not the objective of the TIRM Process to be a job-creation undertaking. Therefore, we are not prepared to adjust the Financial criteria relative to the social benefits category.
Financial	Response
This should be based on full costing including impact mitigation, intervenor funding, operational Public Liaison Committees, continuing neighbourhood liabilities. Reduce this category to 15 points.	These factors will be reflected in the price(s) offered to Toronto. Given the scale of the financial impacts, we are not prepared to reduce this category's weighting.
Include the opportunity of receiving revenue through some form of recycling or recovery process.	This will be considered in the development of the evaluation criteria for our Diversion RFP.
Financial costs to others outside the GTA should be added (i.e. Other municipalities who will loose the opportunity to use the capacity and will have to secure capacity using a significantly smaller tax base).	The capacity offered by the market place may not exist without a substantive contract with Toronto.
Should be given 20 points (system costs - 10; revenue recovery - 5; cost to other than GTA - 5).	Please see answers listed in the previous two rows.
Need to define what Toronto will evaluate in "cost".	The "cost" will include the disposal price and the transportation price.
System-to-systems comparisons should account for Toronto's costs to administer multiple contracts and re-bid short-term contracts.	The associated administration cost of multiple contracts or re-bidding of short-term contracts is relatively minor compared with the contract awards.
Need to clarify that the comparison will be based on net present value in $/tonne.	It will be based in 1999 dollars.
Costs need to be based on lifecycle including all economic benefits of by-products, shipping, energy, and land-use- not just cost of disposal. Financing options that unload municipal investment are also important considerations of assessment.	Transportation is included in the financial analysis and the net energy balance is factored into the evaluation criteria. The cost proposals will reflect other economic factors taken into consideration by the Respondents.
Suggested New Criteria
Loss of prime agricultural land Apply Ontario's farmland protection policies and guidelines	No major agricultural impact in terms of "foot print" impact has been identified.
Community/Neighbourhood Acceptance (Willing Host) Proof through referendum	This is a site-specific matter.
Environmental Justice Fairness to minorities and socio -economic status of community Neighbourhood/individual protection of rights and funding provisions	Cultural aspects are a component of site specific approvals.
Long term risk should be added: related to the uncertainty of access to the U.S. sites over the contract period and the consequences (costs/liability/risks) to the City if waste import to a US site is restricted or banned by a change in foreign law; potential financial liability of the City of Toronto associated with the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act in the U.S. which would put the ultimate liability for environmental impairment from the disposal of waste with the originator (Toronto). A new criterion needs to compare these risks to an Ontario based system.	Toronto City Council will be briefed on the risk of export to the U.S. and may choose to vote for or against one or more proposals based on the information they receive.

 

General
The evaluation methodology and process are at least as important as the evaluation criteria. We urge you to release your proposed methodology now for input and consultation. It is unclear how the information provided by the RFP respondents will be used to compare proposals, which may differ widely in scope, technology and proposed contract duration.	Through the consultation on the Disposal Services RFP evaluation criteria, we have sought broad stakeholder input on three macro-oriented criteria. An attempt to seek input on the evaluation methodology would require a greater level of engagement of stakeholders and time delays. The RFP document will contain a comprehensive explanation of how comparisons will be made between different contract time frames and technologies.
Will the criteria and rankings from Stage 3 be considered further in Stage 4?	It is not our intention to do so. In Step 4 we will be negotiating with the "pool" of top-qualified Respondents.
How does the City intend to evaluate or exclude the diversion component of large-scale integrated disposal/diversion solutions?	The City has established a process of seeking proposals in 3 categories: Proven Diversion, Proven Disposal, and New and Emerging Technologies. The process does not provide for analysis of joint disposal/diversion proposals.
The criteria must include social acceptance by the local and surrounding communities, demonstrated through such means as a referendum, municipal ballot, etc.	City Council has not required a "willing host" status as an evaluation criterion.
Criteria should include an assessment of the long-term economic impacts to the City of Toronto.	This has been factored into our evaluation criteria for the RFP for Disposal Services and will be considered for the scheduled RFP for Diversion Services.
There is no rationale for the "Ontario-based" criteria.	The "Ontario-based" criteria for jobs and purchase of goods and services is linked historically to the development of criteria with reference to the Ontario EA Act, that considers impacts to the environment of Ontario.
A demonstrated ability to remove recyclables from the waste stream prior to disposal should be required.	Toronto City Council has established a process that sets out a 50% diversion rate by 2006 or sooner. The diversion rate is to be reached by engaging the marketplace to provide both diversion and disposal services. The disposal services component will manage residuals from front-end processing plants. By combining diversion and disposal in the same proposals creates a direct competition between diversion and disposal and may force unstable business partnerships between service providers from different sectors of the industry.
Missing community responsibility criterion.	Toronto City Council has engaged the marketplace to identify potential locations of disposal facilities.
Not enough weighting is given to the "Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment" criterion.	We feel that a 35% weighting is reasonable for facilities that have or must pursue licensing through site specific approvals processes.

 Next Steps

The above comments have been considered and reflected, as noted, in the preparation of the Request for Proposals (disposal). The next stakeholder consultation activities will focus on the development of the evaluation criteria for the "diversion" category. It is anticipated that this consultation will commence in September.