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

Home

,! I I I I i I I I I I i ! I RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTIES AND CITIES SHOULD EVALUATE PROPO- SALS FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS WITH A GOAL OF SELECTING THOSE WHOSE SIZE MINIMI- ZES TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC R/SKS AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT FLOW CONTROL WILL BE NEEDED. In the next several months proposals will surface for con- struction of resource recovery facilities. We think counties and cities should evaluate each proposal on its own merits, but generally we urge public officials to minimize the tech- nical and economic risks and avoid the need for flow control. operations of different facilities and thereby encourage ef- ficiency and competition among facilities. Finally, building smaller facilities may be the only way a community can avoid the need for mandating that haulers use specified disposal facilities. If the amount of waste needed for efficient operation of a facility is relatively small, it may be possible for the operator to contract with haulers for delivery to a plant. If the community builds one or two very large facilities it will have no clear, realistic, easy choice about whether to mandate that haulers use such facilities, and may have to accept all the potentially nega- ' tire consequences of flow control. Communities in other parts of the country have had, at best, mixed success with resource recovery technology. Systems have not worked as intended, and costs have been high. We think the Twin Cities should avoid these problems. Perhaps the best way to accomplish this goal is to avoid building one or two very large, centralized resource recov- ery facilities. Economies of scale may not necessarily justify building such facilities and there may be several advantages to buildin~ smaller facilities and working toward a decen- tralized system of disposal. Economies of scale depend on a number of factors, includ- ing location of landfills, and it is not always more economi- cal lo build larger rather than smaller. Hennepin County studies also indicate that it could build one 4000 per ton RDF facility for about $265 million or four 1000 per ton facilities for about $277 million. One of the advantages to building smaller facilities and a decentralized system is that this would enable the commun- ity to shift incrementally toward resource recovery as a primary method of disposal, changing systems or technol- ogy as demand for service changes and technology im- proves. Putting disposal facilities close to where"waste is generated would also minimize transportation costs of refuse haulers.' A decentralized disposal system would also mifiimize dis- ruptions in disposal service for the community if technical breakdowns interrupt facility operations. Such a system might algo give the region an opportunity to compare the We are aware of arguments against the strategy we have out- lined. Some have said there are not enough small markets for steam to accomplish substantial reductions in the land- £fll needs. Siting controversies would also be significant with small facilities just as they will be with large facilities. Conditions may change, however, to nullify some of these arguments. More small markets for steam may be found or formed in the future, as the price of other energy sources increases. Technological breakthroughs may make it eco- nomical to generate electricity at small facilities. Other uses for refuse, besides generating energy, may be developed. One company in Saint Paul has already proposed to use refuse to make building products. {We think county and city officials shouM preserve their flexibility to adapt to these changes, particularly consider- ing the apparent advantages of establishing a decentralized disposal system.) BEFORE ANY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT MANDATES USE OF A SPECIFIC RESOURCE RECOVERY FACIL- ITY IT SHOULD EVALUATE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SUBSIDIZI2NG RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES. These alternatives include: Removing or reducing dumping charges at a resource recovery facility. Raising dumping charges at a landf'fll. ! -13-