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 CONCLUSIONS THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL RISKS INVOLVED IN RE- SOURCE RECOVERY, INDEPENDENT OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FLOW OF WASTE. These include: public opposition to siting, changes in the composition of waste, and uncertainties surrounding the market for recovered energy. Perhaps the most signficant risk is that the facility will not operate to technical specifications. Several communities in the United States have experienced costly problems because resource recovery facilities did not work as projected. A number of people including state legislators, have ex- pressed concern that the Twin Cities not get stuck with a "white eIephant" as they move into resource recovery. We share this concern. STILL, WE RECOGNIZE THAT PUBLIC INTEREST IN RESOURCE RECOVERY IS GROWI:NG, AND WE KNOW THAT PLANTS CAN BE MADE TO WORK. Resource recovery facilities have been operated successfully in Europe for many years. In addition, there are a number of successful operations in the United States. The cities of Albany, NY; Madison, WI; and Ames, IA; have technically successful facilities. Presumably, a resource recovery facility could be made to operate successfully in the Twin Cities as well. PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO LANDFILLS HAS BEEN DEVo ELOPING FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Proposals are likely to come to provide assistance during construction in the form of public tax exempt f'mancing. Proposals to assist the operations of a facility, kn any of the various forms of subsidy we describe in tiffs report, can also be expected. We think the community should be fully cognizant of the need to subsidize resource recovery and the amount of subsidy that is provided to any facility. AS A METHOD OF SUBSIDIZING OPERATIONS OF RE- SOURCE RECOVERY FACILIITES, MANDATING USE OF DESIGNATED FACILITIES HAS MANY POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES, INCLUDING THE LACK OF ADE- QUATE INCENTIVES TO HOLD DOWN THE COSTS OF DISPOSAL. ~ We have outlined in our report many of the criticisms of mandating use of a resource recovery facility. We are con- vinced that these disadvantages warrant avoiding this me- thod of subsidy as long as possible. IF THE PUBLIC DECIDES IT WANTS RESOURCE RE- COVERY FACILITIES, AND WANTS TO SUBSIDIZE THEM, THEN MANDATING USE OF DISPOSAL SITES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ONLY AFTER OTHER METHODS OF SUBSIDY HAVE BEEN EVALUATED, NOT BEFORE. We are convinced that there are enough potential disadvan- tages to mandating use of designated disposal sites to war- rant avoiding this method of subsidy as long as possible. This opposition is concentrated among citizens that do not want a landfill near them, but it includes other concerned citizens as well. The near continuous stream of reports by the media in recent weeks about potential pollution pro- blems at landfills in the state is likely to intensify opposi- tion to this method of disposal. And there may be reap environmental hazards with existing landfdls, although we have not investigated that possibility~. We think the other methods of supporting the operations of a resource recovery facility should be evaluated first. IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE COSTS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL AND PROMOTE OVERALL EFFICIENCY IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, WE THINK ALL COM- MUNITIES SHOULD DEVELOP AN ORGANIZED SYS- TEM OF REFUSE COLLECTION. THE PUBLIC MUST RECOGNIZE THAT MOVING TO RESOURCE RECOVERY IS LIKELY TO REQUIRE PUBLIC SUBSIDY. Some communities in the metropolitan area already have organized collection systems. Their experiences show that cost savings can be obtained through organizing the routes. -11-