01-03-1985 Council Packet Special Meeting

Home Browse Search

There is only one municipal solid waste energy recovery plant in the region, at the Richard's Asphalt Refining Company in Savage. The plant processe> about 50 tons of municipal waste daily. SPECIAL WASTE Tree wastes, ash, tires, demolition debris and a number of other materials handled separately from the mixed municipal solid waste stream are classed as special wastes. Some special wastes, such as demolition debris, are land - filled. A number of smaller land disposal facilities in the region are per- mitted by state and local agencies to accept special wastes. They are used by specific industrial and commercial waste sources and generally are not open to the public. They are not permitted to receive mixed municipal solid waste. A number of businesses and institutions operate small-scale incinerators that handle combustible special wastes. Examples include hospitals, laboratories and manufacturing companies. Generally only a few of these facilities recover energy or materials. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The current trend toward tailoring management practices and regulation to the characteristics of the waste itself is fairly recent. Fifteen to 20 years ago, most waste was taken to unregulated open burning dumps. Little, if any, segre- gation of special wastes, hazardous wastes or solid wastes was practiced. In 1970 there were 60 dumps operating within the Metropolitan Area, most located on floodplains, in swamps and in gravel pits. The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and state action in 1970 required closure or upgrading of dumps. The Council's 1971 solid waste manage- ment plan u ged the shift to landfilling within the Metropolitan Area. Subse- quently, many of the dumps were closed. A handful of new landfills ware devel- oped, but most of the landfills which have operated in the region since the early 1970s were upgraded from open burning dumps. Rules of the MPCA were improved in 1973 to prohibit disposal of hazardous waste in sanitary landfills. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was also the watershed in a growing federal, state and regional policy orientation toward development of alterna- tives to land disposal. Since the mid-1970s, regional policy has incorporated a preference for waste reduction, source separation and waste processing as illustrated on Figure 2-1. Nonetheless, landfilling was perceived as a rou- tinely acceptable, if less desirable, waste management option. The Metropolitan Council completed a feasibility study for a regional system of resource recovery facilities and transfer stations in 1974. In the following years there were four significant resource recovery proposals, three in St. Paul and one in Minneapolis. All failed to develop. Major impediments included local opposition, high cost in comparison to landfilling, difficulty in securing waste flow control and technical viability, among other factors. By the late 1970s, no substantial progress had been made to expand recycling activities. High-technology resource recove-y had not materialized. Efforts by several counties to site landfills had failed. A joint committee of the Minnesota Legislature assessed the problem for more than two years. Their recommendations resulted in enactment of the Waste Management Act. 12