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

Home

'1 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I Under mandatory dispo.~al thc mcit',';cd costs of disposal due to resource recovery plants would be assessed only on people generating wasle within the area required to use the plant. Some people feel it is unfair to require these people to pay lhe higher costs for disposal, when the resource recovery facilities would benefit everyone in the region by abating the need for landfills. It would be possible, theoretically, to build a plant with a capacity large enough to lake in waste from the entire re- gion. Under mandatory disposal, then, all people in the re- gion would share in the additional costs of resource recov- ery. The sha~ing might be unequal, for people living farther from the facility would probably be charged more than those living near the facility. Some people think mandating facilities would prevent ret- um haulers from organizing their collection routes in the ~no~ cost effecIive manner, and thereby impose economic hardships on/hem. Some haulers have organized their routes in a way that allows them to make pickups along a relatively straight path to a landfill. This usually means that those haulers make pickups in many communities along the way to a disposal site. Under mandatory disposal there is no assurance that a hauler's route would be included in its entirety within the geographic area that must use the resource recovery plant. Haulers might, therefore, be required to alter their routes. These alternations could add to their costs of transporta- tion or cause them to incur costs associated with forfeiting some customers and soliciting new customers. It is true, however, that some haulers have all their pickups entirely within one community. Under mandatory disposal, if the geographic boundaries of a mandatory disposal dis- trict were drawn to reflect community boundaries, these haulers might not have to significantly alter their routes. The location of a plant would also affect the extent to which mandatory disposal forced changes in a hauler's route. In Duluth, for example, officials of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District contend that use of the resource recovery facility would not force significant changes in a hanler's route. In the past, most haulers disposed of their waste at a landfill at one end of town. Now that the re- source recovery facility is located at the opposite end of town, were it operating, haulers would merely reverse the order in which they make their pickups. They would not have to alter the path of the pickups.: .--.: Some people also point out that the existing collection system is not organized in the most cost effective way in many communities. Reorganization might permit a corn- munity to achieve cost savings in collection that might balance, to some extent, tb.e increased cost of disposal of resource recovery plants. There is some concern that mandating disposal sites could reduce competition in collection of solid waste. The experience of a number of communities indicates that there are benefits in terms or'both cost and service to com- petition in collection of solid waste. Some people suspect that the high cost of disposal in communities that have re- source recovery plants might reduce the number of hauling companies operating there, and thereby reduce competition in collection, There is concern that mandating dLsposaI sites could elimi- nate the incentive to reduce waste generated, or to recycle. Waste reduction and reclycing are among the region's waste management goals. Part of the reason for mandating use of resource recovery facilities, however, is to guarantee a sup- ply of waste for operators of such facilities. If such guaran- tees are granted, there is little incentive to encourage reduc- tion of waste or recycling. THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUES SURROUNDING MANDATORY DISPO- SAL, AND HAS RECOGNIZED MANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH lri~. The Legislature f'trst discussed the issues, as they pertain to the metropolitan area, in their 1975-76 session, and decided not to permit mandating use of deslgnated disposal sites. At that time, consensus in the state Senate was that re- source recovery ought to be encouraged and that it would not occur without government intervention. The Senate supported the proposal to give local governments authority to mandate use of disposal sites as a way to make resource recovery possible. The majority of the state Representatives, however, felt that resource recovery would occur in the region without mandatory disposal provisions. Increasing energy prices, in particular, but also support for energy conservation sug- gested that resource recovery would be attractive to consumers. Many legislators were also concerned about preventing one resource recovery facility from being established which would have a monopoly on the stream of waste in the region. There was concern that such a monopoly would permit the resource recovery operator to charge extremely high prices for .disposal.