 |
|
Works & Emergency
Services
Category
1 - Diversion
Stakeholder Consultation Meeting
City Hall, Committee Room #2
September
9, 1999
6:00 9:00 p.m.
Meeting
Notes
Attendance:
| Aimo Kuronen |
Hatch Associates/Stinnes
Enerco |
| Ed Walton |
Citizen |
| Farah Aslani |
Citizen/Student |
| George White |
Bioburn |
| Cliff Kerr |
Bioburn |
| Richard Gilbert |
AGRA |
| Meghan Gilbert |
AGRA |
| Robert Webb |
Republic
Services |
| Shelley Petrie
|
Toronto Environmental
Alliance |
| Karen Buck |
Citizens
for a Safe Environment |
| Nikki Vecchiola
|
Citizen/City
Staff |
| Felix Froelich |
Eastern
Power/Subbor |
| Ettienne
Middleton |
Eastern Power/Subbor |
| Lawson Oates |
City Works |
| Catherine
Daniels |
City Works |
| David Merriman |
MacViro |
| Michael Pratt
|
Earth Tech |
| Maria Kelleher |
EnvirosRIS |
| Edith Koehler |
City Works |
| Tracy Korovesi |
City Works |
| Nancy Martins
|
City Works |
The purpose of
this Stakeholder Consultation meeting was to provide an update on
the status of the TIRM project and secondly to obtain input from
participants on the evaluation criteria that should be included
in the Category 1 Proven Diversion Request for Proposals (RFP).
Part I
Presentations
The following
three presentations were made:
- Overview of
TIRM Process and Qualified Proven Diversion Respondents Lawson
Oates, Project Manager
- Review of Diversion
RFP Process David Merriman, MacViro
- Evaluation
Issues Michael Pratt, Earth Tech
Questions and
comments directed to the presenters are recorded in the table below.
| Question/Comment |
Response |
| Where
are the potential diversion technology sites located? |
They
may be located at Toronto facilities, such as transfer station,
or at sites identified by Respondents. |
| EFW
(Energy From Waste) is a part of diversion in most countries,
why is it different here? |
In
the 1980s, EFW was identified as a diversion technology by
the province of Ontario and the former Metro Toronto. It is
currently identified as a disposal technology. Under the Provincial
EA act, a municipal incineration undertaking is classified as
a disposal technology. |
| What
does the million tonnes of garbage received consist of? |
Approximately
nine-tenths is household solid waste. Approximately one-tenth
is commercial solid waste currently collected by the City (primarily
restaurants and small business). |
| What
is the current view of the expected 2002 closure date for the
Keele Valley Landfill Site? |
The
anticipated closure of the Keele Valley Landfill is the first
to second quarter of 2000. |
| What
is the City of Torontos approach to waste diversion? |
The
City is pursuing diversion beyond its current 25% level through
Category 1 of the TIRM Process Proven Diversion Capacity. |
| The
City of Toronto is building in favour of diversion over disposal
(i.e. providing city owned land for diversion technologies).
If the City
of Toronto is making the assumption that diversion is better
than disposal, it should create criteria to reflect this.
|
City
Council has established a policy objective of 50% diversion
by 2006, or sooner. Utilization of City land and facilities
is under consideration as part of the planning process to meet
that public policy objective. |
| Concerned
that diversion amounts should be figured out before disposal
option(s) is/are chosen. |
The
TIRM Process schedule provides City Council with the ability
to identify the number of diversion projects it wishes to contract
for, prior to final decisions being made on the residual solid
waste requiring disposal. |
| Public
wants no residual in order to minimize disposal. |
Toronto
has established a policy of "Zero Waste", that is, a strategy
based on maximizing diversion |
| How
will collection be integrated into the options? Is the city
examining different collection systems? |
Compatible
collection systems linked to diversion technologies that require
specialized collection services, such as source separated organics
composting, will be investigated. |
| Will
the proponents be given the collection system parameters before
hand? Will collection system costs be included in the RFP? |
This
matter will be addressed following the receipt of RFP submission.
Preference
can be stated.
|
| What
are we doing to encourage waste reduction? |
We
have many 3Rs programs in place, including the Blue Box and
Grey Box (fibre), and are pursuing new diversion capacity through
the TIRM Process. |
Part II
Workshop
For the second
part of the meeting, participants were divided into two groups.
One group for citizens and community organizations and another for
industry. Each group was facilitated by a staff person from the
Public Consultation Unit of the Works & Emergency Services Department
and a technical staff person was assigned to each group. Breakout
groups were asked to provide their input on the evaluation issues
that should be considered for the Proven Diversion RFP. Summaries
for each of the groups input follows.
Citizen Discussion
Group
Two questions
were put forth:
- Which criteria
should be used in the RFP for proven diversion?
- How should
these criteria be prioritised? ie: high, medium, low
Health and
Environment
- no negative
health impacts to result from the technologies being used
- concerned with
air pollution, emission levels and lechate treatment criteria
should reflect these concerns
High
Priority
Residue Threshold
- technology
used must have a low residue, and
- high net diversion
High
Priority
Good End Product
- whatever the
end product is (ie: compost) it must be of high quality
- product must
be marketable
High
Priority
Financial
- need to identify
total net cost to the City of Toronto
- include cost
of collection process and disposal of any residues
Medium Priority
Job Creation
- relating to
the technology chosen
Medium
Priority
Publicly Owned
Option
- helps Toronto
gain knowledge of the technologies used
- Toronto maintains
some control
- possibility
of running operation with city staff
- commitment
from political level
- possibility
to export our technology
Medium
Priority
Multiple Contracts
- reduces the
risk
- improves final
product
Medium
Priority
Canadian Technology
and Resources
- support and
promote Canadian technologies and development
Low
Priority
Traffic Safety
- minimize transportation
associated with collection, transport to diversion facility and
transport of output product and residuals
Low
Priority
Other factors
that should not be included as criteria but should be taken into
account at the due diligence stage:
- Collection
programs must emphasis the need to increase diversion in apartments.
This should also be factored into the cost of diversion.
- Must be able
to monitor the system. Have a monitoring program for incoming
as well as outgoing stock . Company should regularly produce reports
as well as report to the ministry.
- Process operation
- concern for citizens re: noise and odour.
- Investigate
past performance of company with respect to their relationship
to the community where they operate. Ask for community references.
- If the company
is ISO 14000 registered. Look at their environmental plan.
Industry Discussion
Group
One industry member
voiced concern that if diversion is favoured over disposal, the
criteria to be used in its evaluation of options should therefore
be superior to those used in evaluating disposal options.
Factors for consideration
when developing criteria:
- Cost of the
system
- Environmental
impacts (greenhouse gas/dioxin/sulphur emissions, impact on water,
air and soil)
- Facility must
meet A7 requirements
- Lifecycle method
should be used
- Benefits to
taxpayers
- Local community
benefits
- Worker safety,
health
- Amount of residual
produced in the operation
- Opportunities
for the reuse of end product
- Reduction of
virgin materials or material flows
- Potential for
growth to meet higher rates of diversion
- Efforts to
encourage reduction
- Ability to
take other types of waste streams
- Possibility
for the city to own and operate
Other
Notes
The use of city
owned property seen as desirable.
All
participants will receive a copy of these notes. They will also
be posted on our web page, and mailed
to anyone requesting a copy.
The
meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
|
|
