Agenda - Council - 04/23/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I Modest changes are recommended for the landfill development schedule. Clarifi- cation is given in response to questions about how private proposals can substi- tute for the schedule's allocations and to clarify what alternatives would be available if all of a county's inventory sites proved to be unpermittable. Economic concerns were also key issues. Some respondents said the guide should allow for more competition and place less responsibility on the public sector. Concern was expressed, in particular, that waste designation would have monopo- listic effects on waste management services. Also, a number of respondents said there should be more in the way of cost incentives for waste generators to recycle and reduce waste. The hearing report responds to these issues and no major changes are recommended to the guide. Organized collection, incentives and other issues will require further analysis as the guide is implemented which may lead to recommendations for future legislative change. These issues do not affect adoption of the guide and its policy structure at this time. Finally, there were several comments regarding the proposal to have the coun- ties implement a hazardous substances separation program. Concern was expressed that the program is premature and requires further analysis. It is recommended, therefore, that the date for having the program in place be moved from 1988 to 1990 and that the implementing responsibility be left open until further work on the subject has been completed by the Waste Management Board (WMB) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). FINDINGS The Waste Management Act of 1980, as amended, requires that the Council adopt a land disposal abatement element as part of its solid waste policy plan. The Act requires that the Council include specific and quantifiable objectives for abating to the maximum feasible and prudent extent the need for land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste and of specific components of the waste stream. The plan must include reduced estimates of added solid waste disposal capacity needed, measurable objectives for local abate- ment standards for measuring implementation of the plan. The Act further requires that the Council determine the number of sites and the capacity of sites to be acquired within each metropolitan county, together with a sched- ule of disposal capacity to be developed within each county. In order to inform it~ judgment respecting its solid waste development guide/policy plan, the Council held a public hearing on'a draft of the plan on Jan. 28, 1985. 3. Feasible and prudent alternatives to the practice of landfilling mixed municipal solid waste exist, but have not been implemented. Governmental entities and private persons generally support the proposed shift away from the practice of land disposal of unprocessed mixed munici- pal solid waste toward the practice of limiting land disposal to processed residuals. Governmental entities and private persons support the implementation of vol- untary source separation of recyclable materials, as a way of decreasing dependence upon landfilling. 6. The public generally supports a more aggressive effort by regional and local government to ensure that the shift away from landfilling can occur.