November 19, 1998.

To:Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

From:City Clerk

Re:Keele Valley Landfill Site - Filling Options

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on November 18, 1998 recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that this matter be considered during the Budget Committee deliberations on the 1999 Operating Budget.

Background:

The Budget Committee on November 18, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter (October 8, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause 1, embodied in Report no. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998.

City Clerk

Barbara Liddiard/cp

Item No. 12

Attachment

c.Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Director of Budgets

Chief Administrative Officer

Lawson Oates, Manager, EA Co-ordiination Branch, Management and Technical

Services, City Works and Emergency Services

(Transmittal letter dated October 8, 1998 addressed to the

Budget Committe from the

City Clerk)

City Council, at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted, as amended, Clause No.1 of Report No.8 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Keele Valley Landfill Site - Filling Options".

In addition, Council directed that the financial implications and costs be referred to the Budget Committee for consideration in the 1999 Budget.

(Clause 1 embodied in Report no. 8 of the

Works and Utilities Committee

as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto

at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998)

1

Keele Valley Landfill Site - Filling Options

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the financial implications and costs be referred to the Budget Committee for consideration in the 1999 Budget.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of Slow Fill Option "B" for filling the Keele Valley Landfill Site, as outlined in the report dated August 28, 1998, from the General Manger, Solid Waste Management Services; and

(2)the adoption of the aforementioned report.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the submission by the Toronto Environmental Alliance to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (August28, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the financial implications of various filling options of the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no immediate funding impact for 1998 resulting from the recommendation of this report. However, adoption of the recommendation of this report would require approval in the 1999 budget cycle for an increase in expenditure in the amount of $4,300,000.00. This initiative will extend the closure date of the Keele Valley Landfill by one year to late 2002.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that staff be authorized to increase the amount of waste being disposed of at BFI's Arbor Hills Landfill to 450,000 tonnes per annum commencing on June 1, 1999, and to immediately notify BFI in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract with BFI.

Council Reference/Background History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on July 15, 1998, had before it a report dated July 9, 1998, Item No. 3 in the supplementary agenda. This report reviewed the potential utilization of the remaining approved capacity in the Keele Valley Landfill Site and discussed the impacts of three options for filling the site to its approved capacity; provided an update on the City's environmental assessment planning process for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity; and advised that it was staff's intention to discuss the content of the report with staff in the City of Vaughan and York Region. Staff further advised that a subsequent report would provide information related to their position on the closure issue, in addition to more specific detail related to financial matters.

The Committee deferred consideration of the aforementioned report until its next meeting scheduled to be held on September 9, 1998, to provide an opportunity for the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee (SWMICC) and any other interested parties to make a deputation.

Additionally, the Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on September 9, 1998, providing more detailed information on the financial implications of the various options and outlining the timing of the proposal call for long-term disposal capacity, such report to include a breakdown of the origin of waste being disposed of at landfill.

The timing of the proposal call for long-term disposal capacity is the subject of another report before your Committee on September 9, 1998.

Discussion and Justification:

Waste Origin:

Table 1 outlines the breakdown of the origin of waste being disposed of at the Keele Valley and BFI and Arbor Hills Landfills.

Table 1

Waste Origin and Tonnages Anticipated for 1999

It is anticipated that in 1999 a total of 1,810,000 tonnes of waste will be managed from the City of Toronto, Region of York, and Region of Durham. Approximately 980,000 tonnes will originate from municipal sources including Agencies, Boards, and Commissions; 300,000 tonnes of private waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sources are expected to be delivered directly to the landfill; and 230,000 tonnes of ICI waste will be received at transfer stations. York Region and Durham Region will deliver 175,000 tonnes and 125,000 tonnes of municipal waste respectively directly to Keele Valley.

Effect of Site Closure Date on Site Capacity:

As a result of biological decomposition of the waste deposited into the Keele Valley Landfill, the site undergoes continuous settlement equivalent to the volume which would be occupied by approximately 500,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Hence, the slower the site is filled the more waste can be placed within the same approved volumetric capacity.

The landfill has been surveyed and an engineering model has been developed which accurately estimates the closure date depending on the fill rate. For example, if the site were filled at a rate of 1,900,000 tonnes per year, its capacity will be reached in spring 2001, at which time the site will contain a total of approximately 27,400,000 tonnes. If the site were filled at a rate of 1,200,000 tonnes per year, its capacity will be reached in the fall of 2003, at which time the site will contain a total of approximately 28,600,000 tonnes.

Hence, the rate of filling of the site not only affects its closure date but its ultimate capacity.

In general terms, any additional tonnage which can be disposed of into Keele Valley at the current approximate cost of $10.00 per tonne will offset future costs forecasted to be $50.00 to $70.00 per tonne.

Methods for Diversion:

Clearly, as part of our waste management strategy, planning and implementation of infrastructure such as the mixed waste processing and material recycling facilities will strive for the goal of 50percent diversion by 2006. However, these initiatives will not likely impact in time to extend the life of the site appreciably.

Action is required immediately at moderate cost to achieve long-term savings. Two such methods by which the City of Toronto can quickly control the rate at which the Keele Valley Landfill is filled is through the BFI contract to dispose of waste at Arbor Hills and through the setting of solid waste management (SWM) fees at its facilities.

BFI Contract:

Toronto began diverting waste from the Keele Valley Landfill in January 1998, at an approximate annual rate of 260,000 tonnes. Purchase of this diversion initiative at a price of $53.60/tonne will have an annual gross budget impact of approximately $14 million. Toronto already has the option to divert up to 500,000 tonnes annually via the BFI contract. The contract expires at the end of 2002.

SWM Fees:

Toronto can create a strong disincentive for the disposal of ICI waste at the Keele Valley Landfill by establishing a high SWM fee at the landfill. Some haulers of ICI material may choose to divert their loads to the transfer stations within the City if their waste is acceptable for receipt at the transfer stations. Historically, loads of construction and demolition (C&D) materials cannot necessarily be accepted at the transfer stations because during unloading, particulate concentrations in air may increase within the enclosed transfer station building. Additionally, loads containing material longer than four feet cannot be accepted due to the restrictions in the mechanical compaction equipment in the transfer stations Hence, if the fee at the landfill were to be increased significantly, haulers of C&D material may decide to avoid the Keele Valley Landfill and haul their loads to private facilities. These paid tonnages would be lost as a source of revenue.

Depending on the fee at the landfill, some ICI haulers may choose to avoid the landfill but to use the Toronto transfer station network. The City has the option to compact and haul the waste to the Keele Valley Landfill or to dispose of the waste via the BFI contract to Arbor Hills.

Filling Scenarios:

Table 2 outlines five scenarios for filling the Keele Valley Landfill: status quo; one option whereby the site is filled rapidly; and three scenarios whereby the site is filled more slowly. Sensitivity analysis showed that the single rapid fill scenario is representative of a number of pricing and diversion initiatives which affect the site closure date by a matter of months. Three slow fill scenarios are discussed in this report to show the effect of extending the site closure date by as much as a year and a half.

Table 2

(1)Status Quo - Landfill Fee $55.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 260,000 tonnes per year.

The status quo is assumed to be representative of costs and tonnages resulting from Solid Waste Management fees established in July 1998 of $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations and $55.00/tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill. It is assumed that approximately 530,000 tonnes would be received annually from the private sector of which 300,000 tonnes would be received directly at landfill; 230,000 tonnes would be received at the transfer stations. Approximately 260,000 tonnes annually would be disposed of through the BFI contract to Arbor Hills Landfill. At the status quo filling rate of 1,550,000 tonnes disposed of annually into the landfill, it will be full in December 2001 and will contain approximately 27,700,000tonnes of waste.

(2)Rapid Fill - Landfill Fee $45.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 260,000 tonnes per year.

Rapid filling of the landfill is assumed to occur if, for example, the SWM fee were set at $45.00/tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill and $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations effective January 1999. It is estimated that approximately 860,000 tonnes would be received annually from the private sector of which 680,000 tonnes would be received directly at landfill due to the incentive of the lowered landfill fee of $45.00/tonne; 180,000 tonnes of ICI waste would be received at transfer stations. Roughly 260,000 tonnes would be disposed of annually through the BFI contract to Arbor Hills Landfill. At this more rapid filling rate of 1,900,000tonnes disposed of annually into the landfill, the site will be full in spring 2001 and will contain approximately 27,400,000 tonnes of waste.

(3)Slow Fill Option (A) - Landfill Fee $90.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 360,000 tonnes per year.

Slower filling of the landfill is assumed to occur if, for example, the SWM fee were set at $90.00/tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill and $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations. It is estimated that the higher fee at the landfill will be a disincentive to haulers resulting in a reduction of ICI tonnes to approximately 50,000 tonnes per year. As has been discussed previously, certain haulers will continue to haul directly to landfill; however, there will be an increased use of the transfer stations to an amount of 330,000 tonnes per year. An additional 100,000 tonnes would be handled via the BFI contract compared to the status quo such that a total of 360,000 tonnes would be landfilled at Arbor Hills in Michigan. The City is obligated to give BFI six months notice of its intent to increase tonnages in excess of 325,000tonnes per year. Therefore it has been assumed for this analysis that BFI would begin hauling the higher tonnages in June 1999. The Keele Valley Landfill would be filled at an annual rate of 1,300,000 tonnes and would be full in early 2003. At closure, the site will contain approximately 28,300,000 tonnes.

(4)Slow Fill Option (B) - Landfill Fee $55.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 450,000 tonnes per year.

Another method of slowing the filling rate into the landfill is by significantly increasing the diversion of waste to Arbor Hills via the BFI contract. If the SWM fees are not altered but 450,000 tonnes of waste is diverted to Arbor Hills via BFI, haulers will continue to use the landfill and transfer stations similar to the status quo rate, but Keele Valley will be filled at a rate of approximately 1,360,000 tonnes per year. The site will be full in late 2002 and will contain approximately 27,900,000 tonnes.

(5)Slow Fill Option (C) - Landfill Fee $90.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 450,000 tonnes per year.

Another variation on the slow fill scenario involves increasing the SWM fees at the landfill to $90.00/tonne and maintaining high diversion through the BFI contract. This pricing alternative will cause a disincentive for ICI disposal at Keele Valley and will cause an increase in ICI disposal at transfer stations. Under this scenario, Keele Valley will be filled at a rate of 1,210,000 tonnes per year and will contain 28,500,000 tonnes at closure in mid-2003.

Table 3 outlines the financial impacts of the five filling options.

Table 3

($000)

(1)Status Quo:

If SWM fees and diversion tonnages to BFI remain unchanged, total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be approximately $270 million. Net costs will rise from $14 million in 2001 to $74 million in 2002 following the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill.

(2)Rapid Fill:

If the Keele Valley Landfill is filled rapidly due to the incentive of low SWM fees at the landfill, net costs in the years 1999 and 2000 will be reduced by an amount of $10 million each year compared to the status quo. Net annual costs will rise from $2.5 million in 2000 to $58 million in 2001 to $75 million in 2002. The total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be approximately $293 million compared to the status quo of $270 million.

(3)Slow Fill - Option (A):

If the Keele Valley Landfill is filled slowly as a result of the landfill SWM fee of $90.00/tonne and diversion of 360,000 tonnes via BFI, total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be $246 million representing a saving of $24 million compared to the statusquo. There will be a reduction in the year 2002 cost impact of $49million.

(4)Slow Fill - Option (B):

If haulage via the BFI contract is increased in mid-1999 to 450,000 tonnes but the SWM fees remain unchanged, there will be a cost increase of $4.3 million resulting in net disposal costs of $21 million in 1999. There will be cost impacts of $8.8 million in each of the years 2000 and 2001 resulting in net annual costs of $21 and $23 million in 2000 and 2001 respectively. The total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be approximately $265 million representing a saving of $4.5 million compared to the status quo.

(5)Slow Fill - Option (C):

If haulage via the BFI contract is increased in mid-1999 to 450,000 tonnes per year and the SWM fee at landfill is increased to $90.00/tonne, there will be cost impacts of $10 million and $14 million in 1999 and 2000. Option (C) results in the highest savings in costs of $28 million over the six-year period compared to the status quo.

Pros and Cons of the Options:

(1)Status Quo:

Pros:

The current ICI disposal fees are established; retaining these fees would result in the least resistance from this industry.

Cons:

The annual disposal costs will dramatically increase to $74 million in 2002 from $14 million in 2001.

(2)Rapid Fill:

Pros:

There is an annual net saving of $10 million in each of the years 1999 and 2000. Private generators would enjoy a two-year benefit of low disposal costs at the landfill.

Cons:

This option results in an overall increase of $23 million in net costs over the next six years (1999 to 2004). This option would result in the Keele Valley Landfill closing months before the status quo option and approximately 1.5 years before Slow Fill Option (B), considerably reducing the time available to plan and implement a long-term strategy for several viable options for diversion/recycling/disposal. The low SWM fee at the landfill may create an imbalance in pricing structures in the ICI sector. This option is the least effective in utilizing the total available capacity at Keele Valley.

(3)Slow Fill:

Pros:

The three slow fill options considered in the report all extend the life of the Keele Valley Landfill Site and all provide a savings ranging from $4.5 million to $28 million over the six-year period from 1999 to 2004. The recommended option identified as Slow Fill Option(B) although it results in the least saving of $4.5 million over the six-year period, provides the lowest costs of all the slow fill options leading up to the closure of the landfill. The recommended Option (B) also retains the existing ICI fees, consequently causing the least impact to this sector and retaining these customers in the interim. The slow fill options better utilize the capacity available at the Keele Valley Landfill and allow the City more time with control of its own landfill, to develop 3Rs alternatives to divert waste from landfill.

Cons:

All slow fill options increase the annual net operating costs in the years 1999 to 2001 compared to the status quo.

None of the options meet the wishes of Vaughan residents to close the landfill as soon as possible. Under the rapid fill option, the residents may seek to negotiate an end to the class action lawsuit.

Conclusions:

If the status quo involving SWM fees of $55.00/tonne at the landfill and $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations is maintained, coupled with minimal diversion of waste via the BFI contract of 260,000tonnes per year, Keele Valley will close in late 2001. Net annual disposal costs will rise from approximately $14 million in 2001 to approximately $74 million in 2002.

If slow filling of the Keele Valley Landfill were effected through increased SWM fees at the landfill and increased diversion via BFI haulage to Michigan, the site will close in early to mid-2003. Slow filling of Keele Valley will save the City from $4.5 million to $28 million for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004.

Slow filling of the landfill by increasing the BFI haulage to Michigan but not altering the landfill or transfer station SWM fees (Slow Fill Option (B)) will not impact generators and haulers of ICI waste. The City will retain its private sector customer base. This option will extend the horizon for planning and implementing waste diversion and disposal infrastructure by one year. Moderate net cost impacts in the short term yield overall net savings in the amount of $4.5 million, and will reduce by $27million the status quo impact of $60 million forecasted for the year 2002.

Contact Name:

Ken Hogg, P.Eng.

Assistant Director, Solid Waste Management Services

Phone: (416) 392-4226; Fax: (905) 392-4754

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

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

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 June18, 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 20 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 of at Toronto's landfills was significantly higher than at present. In 1989, the total tonnage disposed of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 any time 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 the 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 marketplace approach (which may result in public-private and/or public-public partnerships) 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 dovetailing 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 the 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 offset 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.

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, City of Vaughan, advising that the Council of the City of Vaughan, at its meeting of July 6, 1998, adopted a resolution respecting closure and rehabilitation of the Keele Valley Landfill Site by the year 2000, wherein it resolved:

"THAT the City of Toronto be requested to immediately begin its RFP process to search for and select a solution for their waste management needs, effective the year 2000, with the closure of Keele Valley at that same time;

THAT the Council for the City of Vaughan establish a 'Rehabilitation 2000 Task Force' to manage the rehabilitation process of the Keele Valley Dump; that two representatives from each of the following: Vaughan C.A.R.E.S., Maple community residents, Ministry of the Environment, City of Toronto, York Region, City of Vaughan and the private sector be invited to serve on the task force and that the task force be in place to begin its work no later than the fall of 1998; and

THAT the City of Toronto be formally requested to inform the Minister of the Environment that the additional lift at Keele Valley Dump is no longer needed given the availability of numerous other options to manage their waste";

and requesting that the City of Vaughan be provided with the names of two appointed representatives to the Rehabilitation 2000 Task Force.

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

-Mayor Lorna Jackson, City of Vaughan;

-Councillor Mario Ferri, City of Vaughan, and submitted a petition from residents of the City of Vaughan requesting the City of Toronto to close and begin rehabilitation of the Keele Valley Landfill Site;

-Councillor Joyce Frustaglio, Regional Councillor, City of Vaughan;

-Ms. Marilyn Iafrate, Maple, Ontario;

-Mr. Dominic Curci, President, Maple Pioneer Seniors Club;

-Mr. Scott Somerville, City Manager, City of Vaughan;

-Mr. Ernst Von Bezold, Vice-President, Vaughan C.A.R.E.S.;

-Mr. Wilf Goldlust, Vice-President - GTA Division, Canadian Waste Services Inc.;

-Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd.; and

-Ms. Shelley Petrie, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and submitted questions with respect to fast-tracking waste reduction in the City of Toronto.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following:

(i)a copy of a letter (September14, 1998) from the President, Vaughan C.A.R.E.S., addressed to the Honourable Al Palladini, M.P.P., York Centre, expressing appreciation, on behalf of all the residents in Maple, for his effort to support the community in its struggle to have the Keele Valley landfill closed sooner rather than later;

(ii)communication (August 28, 1998) from the President, Maple Ratepayers Association, expressing support of Option No. (2) embodied in the report dated July9,1998 from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the rapid fill approach of the Keele Valley Landfill Site;

(iii)communication (undated) from a Member of the Board of Directors, Maple Glen Homeowners Association, expressing support of Option No. (2) embodied in the report dated July 9, 1998 from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the rapid fill approach of the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

(iv)communication (September 1, 1998) from Mario Cianchetti requesting that Council not allow any further expansion of the Keele Valley Landfill Site;

(v)communication (September 28, 1998) from the Regional Clerk, York Region forwarding the decision of the York Region with respect to the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

(vi)communication (September 16, 1998) from Ms. Marilyn Iafrate, Maple, Ontario, submitting comments regarding the Keele Valley Landfill Site.)