STAGE ONE (DRAFT) Planning Document
Public Workshop

Works & Emergency Services

"SWM-MEP" Public Forum
Metro Hall, Room 308
January 9, 1999

Draft Meeting Notes/Issues List

Attendance:

Allan Gardiner
Iain Gardiner
Hon Lu
Paul Holliday
Ed Fox
David Newland
Mike Akerman
Angelo Babaris
Brennain Lloyd
Rhonda Hustler
John Jackson
Shelley Petrie
Teri Burgess
Mukaddes Koc
Chai Kalevar
Karen Buck
S. Shumuk
C. Munday
Lawson Oates
Bob Davis
Michael Pratt
Tracey Ehl Harrison

Meeting Format

Presentations were given outlining the project background, key contents of the draft planning document, and the consultation and communications program. Due to the small number of people, an informal format was followed. During and after the presentations, a question and answer session took place where a number of concerns were raised by industry members.

Questions/Comments/Concerns

The following issues were raised by those at the meeting.

Process-Related Issues

• Who did the needs study for this process? When?
• All proponents will need to work from the same tonnage figures.
• Are proponents going to be asked to bid based on the assumption that the 2 million tonnes is a constant? Is it assumed that increasing population will be offset by increasing diversion rates and therefore that the tonnage will remain constant?
• Are tonnages from each sector shown in the document?
• Do disposal contracts include haulage?
• What securities will be required for these contracts?
• What is the current at source breakdown of waste?
• What sources of waste are being dealt with in this process.
• The City should take on responsibility for the impacts for longer than the term of the contract.
• The process for securing disposal and diversion contracts should take place at the same time.
• Priority should be given to companies who can do both diversion and disposal. If companies can do both, would they have to submit two proposals?
• There was some concern that there is a wholesale reliance on the marketplace in this process. There needs to be an contingency plan, if this direction doesnt work. Toronto should take the opportunity to utilize small scale diversion opportunities and partnerships.
• How will performance of contractors be monitored?

REOI/RFP Criteria Issues

• Sites shouldnt be disqualified at the REOI stage because of community lobbying. Proposals should be fairly evaluated within the REOI and RFP.
• Does the REOI stage involve the evaluation of only business credentials?
• Financial restrictions in the REOI for the diversion and new and emerging categories will inhibit potential proponents from participating in the process, especially smaller businesses.
• Are polyvinyl chlorides being considered in the macro environmental impacts?
• How will the RFP criteria be refined? When?
• Is there a threshold for the impacts that will result from these contracts? For example, is there something in the process that limits impacts of the project to the 20 year time frame of the contract? Could this be incorporated into the RFP criteria? There should be bonuses for bidders who can guarantee the term of the impacts.
• Why has the willing host criteria been dropped? There should be a willing host. This process will take a long time and be unacceptable if there is no willing host.
• Site locations should be disclosed at the REOI stage.
• The way community acceptability is built into this process is problematic, as proponents may have moved very quickly to get approvals. There should be some evaluation of the quality of the environmental assessment and Environmental Protection Act work that was carried out.
• Engineers doing the evaluation should have no relationship to the past approvals secured related to the sites.

Consultation-Related Issues

• When will the sites be made public? Once the sites are identified and there is notification in community papers, do all who express an interest become stakeholders?
• When will the next round of consultation take place?
• What will the public feedback be used for at RFP stage?
• Residents should be given the opportunity to network with each other to exchange ideas and comments. A list was started and circulated to all those who were interested in participating.
• Has the Planning Document been before Council yet? What feedback have they given?

Diversion-Related Issues

• What if disposal proponents do not account for increasing diversion rates?
• Define Diversion. Does it include pyrolysis?
• Are there interim benchmark targets that are to be met between now and the 50%, 2006 goal?
• Does the City provide diversion opportunities for the IC&I sectors?
• How is the City educating the public about waste diversion?
• Solutions for diversion problems in urban and suburban areas exist. The key is to undertake small scale projects.
• How is Toronto setting its diversion targets? Priority should be given to diversion over disposal (i.e. there should be some form of comparison).
• The planning document infers that diversion proposals may be rejected because certain tonnages are committed to disposal. If tonnages are guaranteed to disposal contractors, diversion is not being encouraged.
• Are tonnages being guaranteed to diversion companies?
• The "friction points" between diversion and disposal should be identified.
• A diversion system that is compatible with high density living needs to be adopted.
• There should be bans on certain items and the removal of compostables from disposal.
• Toronto has learned the wrong message from past site searches. The answer is not to contract with the private sector. The City should spend money on material recovery facilities.
• Staff needs to make strong recommendations to secure diversion options. The recommendations from the RIS study need to be implemented.

New and Emerging Technologies-Related Issues

• A portion (1%, for example) should be put into research and development.

Partnership-Related Issues

• There are mixed messages regarding partnerships.
• How will partnerships be structured within the diversion stream of this process?
• Explain the partnerships that are envisioned in this process.

Other Questions/Comments

• When does the BFI contract end?
• Is the exiting City transfer station network going to be used?
• Does North America include Mexico? Mexico should not be excluded. Rather than limiting the search to Canada and the U.S., a radius in kilometers should be used to scope the search.
• There should be some discussion of the long term liability associated with exporting waste to the United States.
• A number of City Works are currently out of compliance with Ministry of Environment regulations. How can it be guaranteed that the same wont happen with these new contracts? How can the risk be minimized?
• Who will manage a perpetual care fund?
• Has there been any discussion of mining the Keele Valley site to gain additional capacity.
• Toxic waste needs to be considered within this process (4^th R).