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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I Local governments, especially counlJes, are also required to play an expanded role in planning for landfill needs of tile region. In addition Io submitting proposals to the Metropoli- tan Council to abate tire need for land disposal, the metro- politan counties are required lo identify and acquire sites for new landfills tha~ are needed. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF. RISKS INVOLVED IN StlIFTING TO RESOURCE RECOVERY. Public opposition may prevent or delay siting of resource re- covery facilities. We were told thai it is no easier to site a resource recovery facility than it is to site a landfill. The Twin Cities has had experience with public opposition lo siting resource recovery facilities in the past. In 1975 residents of neighborhoods near the then ltoerner-Waldorf plant in Saint Paul objected to pro- posals for a resource recovery facility there. Construction may be delayed, or costs for materials and equipment increase. This risk is incurred with almost any major construction pro- ject. With resource recovery facilities,'however, the expense of such delays or such changes can be high, considering that resource recovery systems may cost $100 million to build. Costs do vary considerably, depending partly on the size of the plants, however. Facilities with capacities of less than 100 tons per day have been built for under $5 million. Composition of the waste ~ change, reducing its value for recoverable energy. Changes in the composition could result in a lower quality of combustible material or ]ess combustible material, and there- by reduce the revenue generating potential of a resource re- covery system. The quantity of waste coming to the plant may diminish. Waste quantity could diminish due to recycling or waste re- duction efforts, or due to competition frown other disposal facilities. The volume of waste available in the Twin Cities also changes from one season of the year to another, with the highest volume being generated in the sunm~er months, and tile lowest quantity being generated in the winter. A facility may not operate to specifications. The history of resource recovery in the United States is marked by a number of facility breakdowns. We were told that, generally, the mass burning plants around the world have worked reasonable well, compared to the semi-s0spen- sion and RDF plants. · The mass burning plant in Saugus, MA is working well. The mass burning facility in Hampton, VA is also working to the satisfaction of the city. In contrast, semi-suspension plants in ttamiiton, Ontario and Niagara Falls, Nry have had consider- able difficulty performing to specifications and are heavily subsidized by those cities. Major problems with technical operations have occurred with the RDF plants in Duluth and Lane County, OR. Both facilities are inoperative at this time. RDF plants in Ames, IA and Madison, WI; however, have worked well, according to Dr. Charles Johnson of the National Solid Waste Association. He attributed the success of these plants to the fact that they accept only residential refuse. The relatively uniform composition of this waste, compared to commercial and industrial waste, reduces the incidence of technical breakdowns. Markets for materials or recovered energy may be unreliable. This risk can be costly, because recovered energy is a primary revenue source for operating a plant. Ronald Swegler, a consultant on resource recovery projects, and an employee of Browning-Ferris Company in Los Angeles, CA, described for the Minnesota Solid Waste Management Association, how the city of Milwaukee ran into problems trying to market the RDF it produced to a local utility. The utility refused to accept the product after initial use. Similarly, the operators of the RDF plant in Baltimore, MD have been unable to find a market for their product.