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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I I I '1 I FINDINGS UNLESS TIlE EXISTING LAW IS CHANGED, START- ING IN JULY 1982, IT WILL BE PER~IISSIBLE TO MANDATE TIlE DELIVERY OF WASTE TO A DESIG- NATED R ESOUR CE RECOVERY FACILITY. The I980 Waste l~{anagement Act gives this authority to the Metropolitan Counc~ and outlines the process the Core,oil must tim before it can invoke the requirements. Under the law the Conncil would be permitted to "require that all or any portion of the solid waste that is generated wilhin the metropolitan area or any service area thereof and is disposed of Jn the slate be delivered to a resource recov- ery facility &signaled by the Council or a transfer station servicing such a facility. The Council may designate a facil- it3' under this section without the approval of the State Waste Management Board except that the approval of the Board shall be required when the solid waste required to be delivered is generated outside of the metropolitan area." The city of Saint Paul is considering adoption of an ordi- nance change that would give the city the same kinds of powers with respect to waste generated in the city. The Saint Paul Department of Public Works has proposed that the City Council adopt an ordinance change that would permit the department to stipulate, at the time licenses are issued to refuse haulers in the city, where haulers must dispose of their refuse. THE MAIN REASON FOR THE AUTHORITY TO MAN- DATE USE OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES IS THAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE SUCH FACILITIES WOULD NOT BE BUILT UNLESS THEIR USE CAN BE GUARAN- TEED. Mandating use is done to make bonds salable. The absence of development of resource recovery facilities during the 1970s has convinced most observers that private investors are not likely to invest in resource recovery facili- ties of substantial capacity unless they ~an be sure the facil- ities will be used. dispose of their trash at the facilities, and through the sale of recovered energy. Before bonds can be sold to finance resource recovery facil- ities investors want to know that the facilities will attract an adequate supply of waste, and that markets for recover- ed energy are available. Mandating use of facilities is done to assure investors that facilities will have an adequate sup- ply of waste. It is possible that haule~ will decide on thek o~ to use re- source recove~ facilities. Under current conditions it is more economical for haulers to dispose of their trash at Iandf'flls than at resource recov- ery facilities. Currently haulers pay disposal fees at area landf'flls ranging from approximately $4.50 to $9.00 per ton of waste dumped. It is anticipated that the dumping charges at a resource recovery facility would need to be considerably higher-closer to $20.00 to $25.00 per ton. Under these conditions most haulers, if left on their own to decide where 'to dispose of their refuse, would not go to a resource recovery facility. It would be less expensive for them to go to a landfill. In the future, however, the differences between dumping charges at landfills and resource recovery facilities are ex- pected to diminish. This is due partly to expected increases in landfall expenses. Existing landf'fll operators will face higher costs for fuel used in machines that spread dirt over refuse once it is dumped. Increases can also be expected due to regulations. As landf'flls f'fll up operators are likely to raise dumping fees. We are already seeing dramatic increases in dumping charges at existing landfills. Between 1979 and 1980 dumping char- ges at the BumsviIle landf'fll, for example, increased from $2.12 per ton to $9.00 per ton; charges at the Freeway landfill went from $3.30 per ton to $6.00 per ton; charges at the Pine Bend landfill went from $2.70 per ton to $6.50 per ton and the operator there recently increased the fee to $7.50 per ton. Income to finance the operations of resource recovery facil- ities is generated partly through fees paid by haulers who Expenses at new landfills are expected to be higher than those at existing sites, for new landfills wilI be relatively