Agenda - Council - 01/12/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I enough to accommodate expansion, but few people accept such expansion as a long-term strategy for disposing of solid waste. -3- THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS RECENTLY ADOPT- ED A POLICY TO SHIFT GRADUALLY AWAY FROM LANDFILLING TOWARD RESOURCE RECOVERY AS ITS PRIMARY METHOD OF DISPOSING OF SOLID WASTE. The policy is reflected principally in the 1980 Waste Manage- ment Act, which stipulates that: No landfills are permitted in the metropolitan area in the future without a certification of need showing no feasible alternatives are available. .. Counties can, upon receiving Metropolitan Council approval, override local restrictions to establish re- source recovery facilities. Beginning in July t982, the Metropolitan Council may require that all waste generated in the metropolitan area be delivered to designated resource recovery facili- ties. The state Waste Management Board may use up to $8.8 million, on a statewide basis, to demonstrate solid waste processing facilities, including resource recovery facilities. The policy is also reflected in the Metropolitan Council's objectives for land disposal abatement. and By the Year 2000 the Council recommends that the region should be recycling 12%to 16% of its solid waste and that 56% to 75% of the region's waste be disposed of in resource recovery facilities. The remaining waste (9% to 32% of the total waste stream) would be buried in landfills. There are two main reasons for shifting away from landf'dling toward resource recovery. It is becoming increasingly difficult to establish new landfills. Despite the fact that it is possible to construct environ- mentally safe landfills (under current standards), public opposition to landfills is growing. Land pollution inci- dents have occurred in the past, and there is growing attention to possible pollution near Iand['dls today. Also, there is opposition to making landfills out of what are now parks or farms. · There is support for recovering energy, from materials that are now buried in the ground. In conjunction with the shift toward resource recovery, Twin Cities communities are planning other methods of abating land disposal. As required in the 1980 Waste Management Act, the Metro- politan Council completed and submitted to the metropoli- tan counties, a report on methods of reducing land disposal of solid waste. The counties, by April 1982, and after con- sidering the Council's report, must submit to the Council' proposals to abate the need for land disposal through waste reduction, source separation, and resource recovery. THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL AND HENNEPIN COUNTY ARE SEPARATELY STUDYING THE FEASIBILITY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR THEIR AREAS. Saint Paul has identified a number of potential sites for re- source recovery facilities. Currently one option being studied is either a mass burning or RDF plant at the Champion International paper manufac- turing plant (formerly owned by Hoerner-Waldorf Corpora- tion). A second option being studied in detail is a mass burn: ing facility at 3M's Maplewood facility. The City plans to pursue siting, construction, and operation of one or more resource recovery facilities so that any necessary bonds can be issued by August 1982. Hennepin County is investigating three poss~le applications of resource recovery systems. One would involve constructing an RDF plant to produce ~olid waste fuel for use by Northern States Power Company (NSP) at its Riverside plant. The plant's existing boilers would need to be redesigned to accept RDF. A second appli- cation involves siting several small waste burning facilities. A third application is a new solid waste fired boiler plant and to supply district heating to the Minneapolis downtown and steam to NSP. It is expected that governments will play a growing role in solid waste management in the future. Local governments in' the metropolitan area, and throughout the state, are expected to play a central role in the shift toward resource recovery. They may own facilities. They may operate facilities. They might also issue tax exempt bonds to assist construction of private £a~ilities.