Agenda - Council - 02/12/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

· mc oLrr^. coL c, 5OU W TE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE/POLICY PLAN (AMEND,V~_NT) I I I I Flexi.bility is Needed for Local Units of Government to Implement Programs to Maximize Landfill Abatement The primary goal for solid waste management in the metropolitan area is JondfjJl abatement. We support the efforts mode by the Metropolitan Council and the Leglslature to achieve this goal. Our comments are offered in order that the Council's ability to guide abatement efforts through its Policy Plan/Development Schedule might be enhanced. We realize that frustration exists regarding the relatively small degree of abatement which has occurred to date in the metropolitan area. It should be emphasized that Anoko County and other metropolitan counties are making significant strides in developing facilities and programs far abating landfills. Anoko County is currently committing substantial resources toward developing a resource recovery facility which would abate a majority of the wastes generated in the county. Also, the County has developed a yard waste composting facility. Acceleration of abatement efforts could occur if the Council's efforts were directed at augmenting the efforts already in progress in Anoko County and in other local units of government in the metropolitan The Council's policy plan objectives ideally should be ambitious but also realistic. The Plan should contain as it does a detailed analysis of the various abatement methods available to achieve these overall objectives, including estimates of their potential for abatement, and options for implementing them. Counties have been designated as the primary implementing agencies for solid waste management. Provision in the Plan for flexibility, including the availability of a variety of implementation tools, will enable the counties to tailor specific methods of abatement to their solid waste management systems in order to achieve the greatest level of abatement. One area in particular where flexibility is needed is in source separation programs. The County supports the concept that an integrated system of different abatement methods will achieve the greatest abatement. For example, source separation, especially of the non-combustible glass and metallic materials, may be compatible with the development of a combustion facility, and in combination source separation and resource recovery could lead to a higher level of abatement than either method used alone. The requirement of mandatory source .separation, though, could be counter- productive if it negates the potential for developing the processing and/or energy recovery facilities needed to abate the majority of wastes. To be able to obtain financing and long-term purchase agreements for recovered energy and/or materials, it is usually necessary to guarantee minimum amounts of waste. Because there would be the potential for a wide variety of items to be mcmclated for recycling in the future, it could be extrernely difficult to obtain the financing and agreements needed because of the uncertainty about future quantities and composition of the waste stream. A preferred approach would be to allow for local flexibility (and legal authority) to mandate source separation and/or -to select the items to be recycled so that source separation programs are complementary with other elements of a local solid waste management system.