Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1988 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission M E E T I N G N O T I C E The Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will hold a Regular Meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 February 1988 in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota Packet information will be distributed to Commission members. For more information about this meeting, please call Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100. MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1988 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR FEBRUARY 9, 1988 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 1988, in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. Lunch will be served. Please contact- Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100, if you are unable to attend this meeting. Notification is essential as we purchase lunches on the basis of the number we anticipate at the meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of January 12, 1988 is enclosed on pages 3 -(, for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, requires approval by the commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. Olmsted County Mass Burn Facility Tour - Staff is attending a tour of the Olmsted County Mass Burn Facility with County staff on Friday, February 5. A brief report on the facility and its associated resource recovery facility will be provided at the meeting. With respect to the siting concerns about the Dakota County facility, enclosed on page '7 you will find an article from the This Week Newspaper concerning the possible locations of the waste processing facility. The County is no longer considering an Eagan site as an alternative for location of a facility and any concerns in that regard should be minimized. B. Establishment of Commission Terms /Reappointment - As you may be aware from recent discussions in the press, the City Council has determined the need to establish terms of office for all its advisory committees and commissions. For that reason, the Council wishes to establish set terms for the Solid Waste Abatement Commission. To formalize this process, you have or will receive correspondence from the City Administrator's office requesting a letter from you indicating your desire to continue on the commission through the formal appointment to terms. Staff appreciates the contributions of all commission members to the solid waste abatement effort thus far and would encourage all of you to prepare a brief letter requesting reappointment as recently as the February 2 City Council meeting. The Council went on record indicating its satisfaction and pleasure with the work of the commission and I hope that all of you will submit letters so that that contribution may continue. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. County Solid Waste Designation Exclusion and Exemption Options Enclosed on pages 5 lg you will find a memorandum and attachments from staff concerning the exemption and exclusion process. Also on pages(q -7Q you will find an article from the Star and Tribune concerning the Reuter facility. These issues should be fully discussed by the commission and this will be the main item of business at Tuesday's meeting. Due to the gravity of this issue and the short time frame in which certain matters must be executed if an exemption alternative were to be considered. It is staff's recommendation that you forward a preliminary finding to the City Council if you wish to discuss this matter further so that they might give direction to the commission to further consider this issue. Staff will discuss this option with you at the meeting on Tuesday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a recommendation to the City Council to direct further commission and staff development of an exclusion policy. V. NEW BUSINESS VI. OTHER BUSINESS There is currently no Other Business to come before the commission, however, enclosed on pages you will find an article from commission member Yehle concerning curb side recycling for your review. VII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be on March 8, 1988. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 p.m. 1 • Adm istrative Assistant 1 MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota January 12, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, January 12, 1988 at 11:38 a.m. The following members were present: Co -chair Tim Hoel, Co -chair Tom Mann, Larry Knutson, Darleen Bahr, Thom Yehle, Delmar DeBilzan, Duane Soutor, and Jon Hohenstein. Absent was Earl Milbridge and Terry Schnell, alternate. Also present were Warren Wilson, Dakota County Planning Services, and Terry Guggenbuehl of Pope -Reid and Associates. MINUTES Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Yehle, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the December 8, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approved as presented. AGENDA Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Yehle, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved. DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY Administrative Assistant Hohenstein introduced the item and explained that the city administrators from Dakota County cities had been meeting with county staff to discuss certain solid waste abatement decisions made at the county level. He stated that some concern was raised about the county's choice of a mass -burn technology, the reluctance of vendors to engage in centralized processing and the potential for consideration of sites other than the original Rosemount location. Bahr asked if Eagan was being considered for possible siting of the centralized processing facility. Wilson responded that many cities, including Eagan, were being considered for the facility but that the county's preference was still for the original Rosemount site and an additional Rosemount site. He stated that the county wanted a site close to the population and waste generation centroid which lies in Rosemount just south of Eagan and east of Apple Valley. Bahr asked if environmental review would consider all sites. Wilson responded that the county would narrow the selection to the preferred Rosemount site and one or two alternates for comparison. Wilson indicated that final selection of those sites to be reviewed would be completed in two weeks and that a six month review period would allow public input on the matter. Bahr asked if vendors currently under consideration were willing to implement centralized separation. Wilson stated that all three vendors indicate that no known centralized separation process is economically viable and that the county would intend to implement such separation when it became viable. He stated that in the meantime, the county would implement a materials recovery facility at which source - separated materials could be 3 Minutes Solid Waste Abatement Commission Page Two marketed. This facility would be co- located with the centralized processing facility. Hohenstein stated that the Dakota County Managers seemed very supportive of the implementation of a centralized processing element. Hoel asked if the cities will be the only entity available to meet recycling goals if the county chooses not to implement a centralized separation facility with the centralized processing facility. Wilson responded that that was true. Bahr asked if the Metropolitan Council was modifying its rules to make centrally separated materials qualify toward the landfill abatement goals. Wilson said that such a change would probably occur within the next_year. Yehle asked if the time frames in the Dakota County Master Plan were accurate. Wilson stated that the county was slightly behind the stated schedule. Hohenstein indicated that the next agenda item related closely with the current topic of discussion and requested that the Commission move forward to that item. REUTER RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS Hohenstein stated that the Commission and Council have previously taken a policy position that the City intends to cooperate with the County in all matters pertinent to solid waste abatement. The only qualification to that policy was if county decisions were of such a nature or magnitude as to place unreasonable financial and other obligations on the City of Eagan in which case alternatives would be considered. Hohenstein indicated that correspondence had been received of Doug Reuter which indicated the availability of Reuter's service in the event the City wanted to be exempted or excluded from Dakota County's waste designation plan. He further defined the terms, indicating that exemption could be requested for any wastes already going to a solid waste facility at the time of designation plan submittal and that an exclusion would be for contractual arrangements for such processing which were requested after submittal of the designation plan but prior to its approval. Yehle asked if the City could designate its wastes to the Reuter facility until the county facility was on line and then decide which facility to use. Hohenstein responded that it would probably be difficult to change back and forth. Wilson indicated that the county facility would be sized based on the amount of waste designated to it and, therefore, probably would not have the capacity to absorb the wastes from a city the size of Eagan. Bahr indicated that she would prefer to cooperate with the county but would not support the county if it were to site the facility in Eagan. DeBilzan stated that he was concerned with the mass -burn technology because it is difficult to control the mix of materials being burned and, therefore, the amount of heat produced for energy conversion. Wilson stated that despite its problems, mass burn was coming to be acknowledged to produce no more pollution than facilities burning refuse - derived fuel. Commission I Minutes Solid Waste Abatement Commission Page Three members asked Terry Guggenbuehl if this were true and Mr. Guggenbuehl indicated that to his knowledge mass burn was considered to be more polluting due to the reduced amount of separation which typically precedes it. Hoel asked why the county was only negotiating with mass burn vendors. Wilson responded that with the exception of the Reuter proposal, all of the proposals received by the county were for mass burn facilities. He stated that this was probably a result of the county's requirement that proposers indicate an adequate net worth to secure the project, that they have five years of experience operating a facility of that kind and that the facility be of a proven technology. DeBilzen indicated that the Reuter proposal would have cost one -sixth of the anticipated cost of the county proposal and asked if Reuter were excluded because it was not an expensive enough technology. Wilson responded that the company did not demonstrate the net worth and proven technology elements of the request. Wilson stated that the county approach to the project was to reduce as many uncertainties as possible and that implied the need for a simple, effective, proven technology. Knutson asked which vendors were currently engaged in negotiations with the county. Wilson responded that the three finalists are Combustion Engineering, Browning Ferris Industries and Waste Management Incorporated. Yehle asked if discussions were continuing between the Reuter Corporation and Apple Valley. Hohenstein indicated that he did not know if anything further had been decided but that he was aware that Reuter had made overtures to Burnsville, Eagan and Apple Valley as the three most populous cities in Dakota County. Upon motion by Yehle, seconded by Mann, all members voting in favor, the issue of a recommendation concerning alternatives to the Dakota County waste processing facility was continued to the next regular meeting with direction that staff inform the City Council of the issue and the time frames involved and further that staff investigate and report back to the Commission on the economic factors of exclusion, the timing requirements of an exclusion and other factors to be considered in such a recommendation. ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY Terry Guggenbuehl of Pope -Reid Associates was present to review the final draft of the organized collection study. Knutson stated he has a lingering concern about the street wear calculations for the following reasons: (1) the state is more strictly enforcing weight laws which reduce the number of overweight trucks being operated and (2) the industry has innovated in the past to reduce axle weights of even relatively heavy machinery. He further stated that he would be satisfied with a qualification which acknowledged these improvements. Guggenbuehl indicated that the street wear calculations were based on a S Minutes Solid Waste Abatement Commission Page Four Minnesota Department of Transportation standard for single and tandem axle trucks similar to backer trucks. Hohenstein also indicated that even vehicles within the weight limit of a street will tend to have more impact than much lighter vehicles. Upon motion by Yehle, seconded by DeBilzan, all members voting in favor, the Commission accepted the final organized collection study and forwarded it to the City Council for consideration. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission was set for Tuesday, February 9, 1988 at 11:30 a.m., unless pressing business requires a special meeting at some earlier date. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by DeBilzan, seconded by Yehle, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:06 p.m. Date Chair Person Secretary �Ll 0 N U00. r.1) a" •4, O c G a_ c -C c. U - as 4, ro ro O.- C. 0 y ca ro c _ i. c -0 , E a, as v^ ro y :h ..+ =. c .0 c in U G c a U C c to c © a 4 U .C. - - ,-, c L. E^ - U c 'V . ' CU . a CZ O ` , ±. ' O v O U0.G y-' p a `� ' E O U CZ ', pry - 27 c CZ C ro a ro Tin U O L .D U E y ... U -L = c J N .° U-, Ny, vb. c7 ro O p a C0 E O c_ C, N - a ^-. W U v, a c ' ' s U V- G U O : w n f.. O iC C !. ^ C L L t.0 O w-c co . _ U . ` U O t. ro .. U l .. cc C C '=• ^ CJ, S ,.G, C '/c .. ,+y qq� y ' a U C U h c 0;71) v a c p v, c _ J. 7 ;a . - r .! . "O :a S .. '2.: t W/ w 4 y v c b G ro L O a v C E U C a C a rp U :O L J L r U , •M ,. ' ' 3 o cv ' p ° v. d C v .. 73 = x ° E O u L .� _ 0 . E- E C i 0 c.) c.) ° ;14 t� W : ' y -•-• •- '> r 0 - v °' c u G w c 03 E c o u o E ' G W as u-, v` c a v r. ? �yl 4 S a, .." U F. O ' 'D U N J V N .� O 5 5 ^ U .n _ v: ^ C, 5-U ca ;.� a, 0 A. y ' � 4 ...� .... E L . ' U Q, O a, ti Y L p .+i �� r. :. 1 m . ‘4.4 "4 c � . C ro y " 0 5 L 7 - L > $6.. C O U O U U U y C , 'Y CO - _ - C 'C t-. F ro 0 c6 i.. O M ro v y W y v E° „ °> o ° �r `•-° � u G1 ti c cc c a 5 ' a L ro aro > a n a u 3 —- r Ca U C U G v : L D o0 C C r c 0 S L •.... a G i a Y c • L ca -0 G 'C ..= is o ' • C . u O r7 "' ' W ay ✓' U o 5 _ °> O a N W 7 E M a.) E= 3 c c c • r W - v >. c O --• . 7 c. - . a Cc ' • m o , o 'D u o � ° ` • N ro C r ° •' c -C ' v . - 4 ( - . . c - c . •D X 1• _c E N 0. ? O ^ c y c S J c O U c C - .� — " ,� ro E^ t ., R: ± : ...c U .:: O c .! ro O .- c ' 4/ r c ro Y� . W 'O cn ti. y , - ° ,�" {_ ��' . '� d . " 0. p N U ' D 'y E� O 0. a ' 'O 5 z• c'3' y = J �. ~ 7 CI ` , ,) , c E ...c ^7 ro U .4 �. __ c a J t, a c' C, w � i T . v _. y U U - . ro , v . G "C �E<n= L 6 . o E @ c L W J��� c F L Ai d ,. ro C G O "O O C p O — V >> E O> 5 .^. C 0 - C. .c'., v. 'Th... ^ v N G v C G f F L. y % L v) 0. A v , , c0 ,- p s v, C _ � .. ' j 7 ,. O C N h0 t W 6 = - n Q " ^ ro b ' ,� .... ca c ,.. c U .. 'O L ro ro vi U i C >, C •0 U U 7 C C i ti' - p 3 E v O C ^ G. C a 'U ml .0 Q J T 'D C ^ a :C ' .0 y as E N ^ _ vc v, C - ., E . 0 c..^ U O - .n C O. Y #' • � ��= o�J ° ro c. at .Wa a ��ro a m `o�E¢ e.' a � a E , " v a v C o . .. E E ur c a x ro > C7 5 m ^J • O •O 0 U-. .'.. •4 N . 2 N J ._ 'f. -1 'O G G G t -^. .^-. L a, L 73 -c-c. C y J N o • v, c Is x rs:n E � v r roc a _ c y c - � l ff o 1--00,,,--000 p _ c> > 0.m a c a 'v v roL ° v m v N? u i ° -Ed' ° J ° ^ scu s • o r s 'o y; n ' v v v o i. ;o v ° v 0 . 0 .c . v c ,...0 s = a u, a ^ �. c N �ii� b x aorov•ovroa� c, - = ^ t ° aE>^ s - -..cm T _ noL v ro Y�i u 5 c. : ". O n y v ca v o v L- e d m - i, v o C ....:7 -. .;$4', ,. -0 CL U c a, .c ,� v, ^ . N U '� ,J1 'GO `• - ._ c _ ^ " U c. U a E i � W d- �, I ; T � a, .N.+ 5 " a c U . ,id C , ro ` c • = c4 M �' y ro+ r a L u ;n L ro ro y O A .- . t EL ' ro ' t • ro 0 O .n U ca �. i-. 5. O y U , ' C c ca y OZ C E J a; a, n . v v °' o v " • p c °; to c ,a U y ca 'v - a v y c y. CZ 0 s' cc a^ c r- o •a SE `" - v ro i ro ° U P 1 a v ° >. a u r n v v ¢ u ro c c. (1) ,• ' 1 x.ri� 3 - ro v _ n ' ` �1. a 'u •D a' . w � '_... 'O cc' S c V �» y o O U E ro M !^ ' 0 E >, '' 3... .^ c v y v p c y a 4.141 R F c c E ° 5 ^ vU v c n ca c u 0 - v ad „, 3 t.. C _.� ''; taai ° u o E �� c H c � a v c � a a ai o o � v o d°� N "W 0^ 0 S � �L o . q E r .0sn000•^ •-• cU333 � a u E u a u3 5 _ ?$ i; =� f C v >, C >r a) a? ' ' ' y yr U . „ ^ U c a, as • D ' 0 �' i�' c . o�v y v a ` . ° y am � •o c.) 7:s vy� °'��oL aE • , ? S al N-c O a Q;r unt 4 c7 O 0 .- y 0 C p. G 0 J t ° 0 c b 3 v ° v ° c. u a i n c O L u c p C0 S O c % C s ca'D v •- 'O u (a v o L y V7 to Vl �' w aCJ ro C x �a ° c oa �° c.� Ecn'°.o �: 160111111 �'.. ! TS c o a = c. 0 m ro >, ,� U CIS E' ro c u L c. c t ; o c ,. 'fl c c ` . u^ 6. G C ca .v C O O. d � P. a <' a u v c m 'C cn u o ro ar o v m v _ cn ro a _ >, v L i ii � k3 � . t ca u �-' o ' • ro 'o w o c c _ w > O G c C, a% t . 0 . , � _ a: y O ro ro c d ... R vj v. •- ° U a, c .E, O v y .O ro L - 5`_ f' O ' C v, al U a F. "' O 5•' C C t10 a .p � 6, a, U c E J a 1 G: a y, C cJ 'O ,U v 5 �� #. V p y w y C cn S E U 4! p a, L w a, y cn cn , .- a �o`�0uoro a � U o y ro vo° a Da ocx vo > ° ^n °° yvs. ca,en= E , -, e; t x' r.. 41 C..) c w 0 uDca a 3Q u a u• 7 3 � � �/ � O �) ti F r : n d C .0 G a� a, >a •-• p ac O .D c a, C ,� '6 'O .� 'fl v rr' i .O . NU .. VV 3 mia u c o n s. ro „ijH cv v v ' O. .. H ijij cII �a zv tog ro 6i p .° . . . d t 0 . O .; .'�".'. + ° ° w G ° U " O. m CZ y ..6. u ca a, a • > ° 5 vi 4 a ` , a v n , c . a y fir, o as D O O CO o N w E 'o d u E o'h v c • E p, v ro 3'v u 0 5 ro a... v; � � IG J # , W p 'u ro a, c) ca d a) -a a a, y % a, U ., .c Q.' ,0 - U w i 'n cts y c • w • O ' w L , N N ro U , ,. �/ r , n c CG ro roti c ro O u .c 3 u 0 0 � v o c. CZ E. a c o E x ^v�v a ' c0 j c c� E ° c>' ° c ? a i co � • ms 5 0� u _a v c �' . v \� w L w c v _ ^ y 7 �m a.S>� ° u > c� >v�' il 5 a U I.. '° v ^ S ° " y 0 u .° 'c, 0 y c v o � O .5 c a i o y w 5 c 40 U E o _ _;c >,_ v_c c al +.1_ 14 ' a • ° 'O . ca ° L ,°n O c n '0 Q T7 "c - O ' ca - 4 u y T. 0) 0 y 3.. •0 L v, ' D c° L p � I C , a , -- . Q ' � o o i M °E" '° ro a ` i 0 0.C. -',. —' c y C• o "F^ ro' ro . > -, at." c 1:11 E u c caA'v, - 5 3w ., 3E. a v, c c • 0... u a, 73 n v ,�i� = � E� 5 ro O . ,� _ v : z y it , Rfi r�tt is .4tAte, . } F icplt� r t 1Mr 1 i r K F ' -- = f y - , . , ,p' a r d .1 .s h k ,, ,. c b 4 f j -?{ x i* } Y.. r { , T. ' 3 i e c f �, J ' >; 5 � �}; � ��Y b �' G�" rF ^fit '�`� ' , r. 7 ' : +r , p, j � y . .� � - fi r c � d '�. , ti��� � , �l• - � , n �� �E is j� r .. ,s i -" : * y�, ,. KH - r, tt , , ., v ° ' e d A . t,. ," do ` .1, 1 , + ', t ..; #eYf i -,„*.,;34.',4 , .: yy a ✓,,, d . d. b ` , k ' ) s+- r 1,11,y-r., d c l ,.. 3 , ii LT , x� -:1 { .� e s'd F# ,,, �.,,, ,, t , 1.- i� " 1 ?!dfi�i;t, i ' , y � . _ ! ,.2 �b �yi -.�" M,°4+��. � ...�� �1x,. .p. � iR .��'�Fo ;� -44,,,,,,,,,,,„4,4,,, , r ,. � tom S nE e � ,. , �d ) •. 'ae .: , , ,,, , d , : .. MEMORANDUM TO: Chairs Mann and Hoel and All Members of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission FROM: Administrative Assistant Hohenstein DATE: 2/2/88 SUBJECT: Potential Exemption or Exclusion from Dakota County Designation Plan As you know, it is the stated position of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission and the City of Eagan that the City's best interests will be served by cooperation with Dakota County in its waste abatement and management efforts unless decisions made by the County are of such a nature and prescribe such obligations on the City that waste management alternatives would serve its best interests. Concern had been raised at previous meetings that the current County decisions concerning mass -burn technology and centralized separation raised sufficient questions concerning the best interests of the City as to justify research into the alternatives. Attached you will find sections of the Waste Management Act of 1980 as amended pertinent to solid waste designation, designation exemption and designation exclusion. As is indicated in Section 115A.83 materials which are being processed at a resource recovery facility at the time the Metropolitan Council would approve a designation plan is automatically exempted from the designation plan. If waste is not going to a resource recovery facility at the time of designation plan approval, but will in the near future, the Council must grant an exclusion for those materials from the designation plan. The exclusion process is defined in Section 115A.84 Subd. 4. which requires that: 1. the other resource recovery facility be completed within 18 months of the designation plan approval and that the operator of such facility file a description of the facility, waste supply sources, purchasers of its products and design capacity within 30 days of the submittal date, 2. the facility has contracts for the sale of its products, and 3. the City has a contract with the facility to accept its waste and with the haulers to deliver it to the facility. Currently, Dakota County intends to submit its Designation Plan on or about March 1 which means that an alternative facility operator would have to submit documentation concerning the materials to be excluded by approximately April 1 and that all contracts be executed before plan approval. Approval or denial must occur within 120 days of the submittal date. While immediate approval is not likely, the reviewing agency may not require the entire 120 day review period. A graphic, prepared by S the County, describing this process is attached. As can be seen from the summary above, exemption is probably a logistical impossibility for the City of Eagan. Exclusion remains an option, but any consideration of it must occur quickly and consider as much as may be anticipated about the benefits and disbenefits of each option. Benefits 1. Self - determination for the City's waste management future. 2. Potential use of a more environmentally sensitive processing technology. 3. Potential integration of a centralized separation component as part of a waste abatement strategy. Liabilities 1. Assumption of all risk for City's waste management future. 2. Potential financial obligation for both a City program and retirement of County debt for the central processing facility. 3. Need to build a transfer station or absorb the costs of transporting wastes to a remote processing facility. 4. In the event that the alternative processing facility were to fail, the City would be responsible for location of a new facility or for expansion of the County facility to accept the previously undesignated materials (The County facility will be sized on the basis of its designation plan total.). 5. Potential participation in both an alternative facility and the County facility depending on City growth and the capacity excluded to the alternative (Exclusion is a one time option which may be for a specific tonnage and plant capacity. If growth is not sufficiently anticipated, any tonnage above the exclusion would still fall under the designation plan.). As can be seen from the summary discussion above, it is clear that exclusion is not an issue to be approached lightly and its consequences in the event of a vendor failure or low exclusion quantity are substantial. Staff has reserved specific conclusion from these facts. Staff is attempting to coordinate resource people from both the Metropolitan Council and Dakota County to respond to Commission questions at your meeting on Tuesday. "- girL,4A - 2=1, A.iinistrative Assistant June 1987 g WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1980 AND RELATED ACTS AND LAWS As amended to date* Reprinted by: Legislative Commission on Waste Management Senator Gene Merriam, Chair Kim Austrian, Director • Room 85, State Office Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 . ,. (612) 297 -3604 _ *Underlined and crossed -out portions are 1987 amendments " "" from Chapters 348, 384, 404 and 1st Special Session ^ Chapter 5. C7 1 f Every issue of revenue bonds by the district shall be payable out of any funds or revenues from any facility of the district, subject only to agreements with the holders of particular bonds or notes pledging particular revenues or funds. If any facility of the district is funded in whole or in part by Minnesota waste management bonds issued under sections 115A.57 to 115A.59, the state bonds shall take priority. The district may provide for priorities of liens in the revenues between the holders of district obligations issued at different times or under different resolutions. The district may provide for the refunding of any district obligation through the issuance of other district obligations entitled to rights and priorities similar in all respects to those held by the obligations that are refunded. 115A.72 [AUDIT.] The board of directors, at the close of each year's business, shall cause an audit of the books, records and financial affairs of the district to be made by a certified --r public accountant or the state auditor. Copies of a written report of the audit, certified to by the auditors, shall be - placed and kept on file at the principal place of business of the district and shall be filed with the secretary of state and -- the board. DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES 115A.80 [DESIGNATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES; r ��.._��w PURPOSE.] ' II In order to further the state policies and purposes expressed in section 115A.02, and to advance the public purposes served by resource recovery, the legislature finds and declares that it may be necessary pursuant to sections 115A.80 to 115A.89 to authorize a qualifying solid waste management district or county to designate a resource recovery facility. 115A.81 [DEFINITIONS.) I„ Subdivision 1. [SCOPE.] The terms used in sections 115A.80 - to 115A.893 have the meanings given them in this section. ' S Subd. 2. [DESIGNATION.] "Designation" means a requirement t k by a waste management district or county that all or any portion of the mixed municipal solid waste that is generated within its 1;_ boundaries or any service area thereof and -is- deposited - within the -state be delivered to a resource recovery facility identified by the district or county. f Subd. 3. [REVIEWING AUTHORITY.] "Reviewing authority" i' means the agency responsible for reviewing and approving a \\. designation plan under section 115A.84, subdivision 3, and a designation ordinance under section 115A.86, subdivision 2. ad 115A.82 [ELIGIBILITY.] Facilities may be designated under sections 115A.80 to al 115A.89 by (1) a solid waste management district established dE pursuant to sections 115A.62 to 115A.72 and possessing i. designation authority in its articles of incorporation; or (2) a a' county, but only for waste generated outside of the boundaries of a district qualifying under clause (1) or the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District established by Laws 1971, chapter dE 478, as amended. a p- d 115A.83 [EXEMPTION.] d The des- ignation may not apply to or include: (1) materials 4 that are separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in 4= their original form or for use in manufacturing processes; or (2) materials that are processed at another resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time that the r designation plan is approved by the reviewing authority. r 115A.84 (DESIGNATION PLAN.] _ _ Subdivision 1. [REQUIREMENT.] Before commencing the a designation procedure under section 115A.85, the district or county shall adopt a comprehensive solid waste management plan or, under chapter 473, a master plan. The comprehensive or . master plan must include a plan for designation approved under this section. Subd. 2. [DESIGNATION; PLAN CONTENTS.] (a) The designation plan must evaluate (1) the benefits of the designation, including the public purposes achieved by the conservation and recovery of resources, the furtherance of local and any district or regional waste management plans and policies, and the furtherance of the state policies and purposes expressed in section 115A.02; and (2) the estimated costs of the designation, including the direct capital, operating, and maintenance costs - of the facility designated, the indirect costs, and the long -term effects of the designation. (b) In particular the designation plan must evaluate: (1) whether the designation will result in the recovery of resources or energy from materials which would otherwise be wasted; (2) whether the designation will lessen the demand for and use of land disposal; (3) whether the designation is necessary for the financial support of the facility; I7.2, • (4) whether less restrictive methods for ensuring an adequate solid waste supply are available; and (5) other feasible and prudent waste processing alternatives for accomplishing the purposes of the proposed designation, the direct and indirect costs of the alternatives, including capital and operating costs, and the effects of the alternatives on the cost to generators. Subd. 3. [PLAN APPROVAL.] A district or county planning a designation for waste generated wholly within the metropolitan area defined in section 473.121 shall submit its designation plan to the metropolitan council for review and approval or disapproval. Other districts or counties shall submit the designation plan to the waste management board for review and approval or disapproval. The reviewing authority shall complete ._... its review and make its decision within 120 days following submission of the plan for review. The reviewing authority shall approve the designation plan if the plan satisfies the requirements of subdivision 2. The reviewing authority may attach conditions to its approval that relate to matters required in a designation ordinance under section 115A.86, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (4), and paragraph (b). Amendments to plans must be submitted for review in accordance with this subdivision. Subd. 4. [EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MATERIALS.] When it approves the designation plan, the reviewing authority shall exclude from the designation materials that the reviewing authority determines will be processed at another resource recovery facility if: (1) the other resource recovery facility is substantially completed or will be substantially completed within 18 months of the time that the designation plan is approved by the reviewing authority; and (2) the other facility has or will have contracts for purchases of its product; and (3) the materials are or will be under contract for delivery to the other facility at the time the other facility is completed. In order to qualify for the exclusion of materials under this subdivision, the operator or owner of the other resource recovery facility shall file with the reviewing authority and the district or county or counties a written description of the facility, its intended location, its waste supply sources, purchasers of its products, its design capacity and other information that the reviewing authority and the district or county or counties may reasonably require. The information must be filed as soon as it becomes available but not later than 30 days following the date when the county or district submits its `tom` l3 designation plan for approval. t The reviewing authority may revoke the exclusion granted C under this subdivision when it approves the designation ordinance under section 115A.86 if in its judgment the excluded materials will not be processed at the other facility. 115A.85 [PROCEDURE.] G Subdivision 1. [REQUIREMENT.] A district or county with an approved designation plan shall proceed as provided in this section when designating facilities. A district need not repeat the designation procedures in this section to the extent that the procedures have been completed by each county having territory in the district or by a joint powers board composed of G each county having territory in the district. Subd. 2. [HEARING.] The district or county shall hold a I Et public hearing to take testimony on the designation. Notice of the hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area for two successive weeks ending at least 15 days before the date of the hearing and must be mailed to political subdivisions, landfill operators, and licensed solid waste collectors who may be expected to use the facility. The F notification must: (1) describe the area in which the designation will apply and the plans for the use of the solid waste; (2) specify the point or points of delivery of the solid waste; (3) estimate the types and quantities of solid waste subject to the designation; and (4) estimate the fee to be charged for the use of the facilities and for any products of the facilities. A designation or contract for use is not invalid by reason of the failure of the district or county to provide written notice to an entity listed in this subdivision. Subd. 3. [NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS FOR USE.] During a period of 90 days following the hearing, the district or county shall negotiate with the persons entitled to written notice under subdivision 2 for the purpose of developing contractual agreements that will require use of the facilities proposed to be designated. Subd. 4. [DESIGNATION DECISION.] At the end of the 90 -day contract negotiation period the district or county may proceed to secure approval for and implement the designation as provided ` in section 115A.86. 115A.86 [IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATION.] Subdivision 1. [DESIGNATION ORDINANCE.] (a) The district or county shall prepare a designation ordinance to implement a designation. The designation ordinance must: (1) define the geographic area and the types and quantities of solid waste subject to designation; (2) specify the point or points of delivery of the solid waste; (3) require that the designated 1( solid waste be delivered to the specified point or points of delivery; (4) require the designated facility to accept all designated solid waste delivered to the specified point or points of delivery, unless the facility has notified waste collectors in the designated area that the facility is inoperative; (5) set out the procedures and principles to be followed by the county or district in establishing and amending any rates and charges at the designated facility; and (6) state any additional regulations governing waste collectors or other matters necessary to implement the designation. (b) The designation ordinance must provide an exception for: (1) materials that are exempt or excluded from the designation under section 115A.83 or 115A.84, subdivision 4; and (2) materials otherwise subject to the designation for which negotiated contractual arrangements exist that will require and effect the delivery of the waste to the facility for the term of the contract. Subd. 2. [APPROVAL.] A district or county whose designation applies wholly within the metropolitan area defined in section 473.121 shall submit the designation ordinance, together with any negotiated contracts assuring the delivery of solid waste, to the metropolitan council for review and approval or disapproval. Other districts or counties shall submit the designation ordinance, together with any negotiated contracts assuring the delivery of solid waste, to the waste management board for review and approval or disapproval. The reviewing authority shall complete its review and make its decision within 90 days following submission of the designation for review. The reviewing authority shall approve the designation if it determines that the designation procedure specified in section 115A.85 was followed and that the designation is based on a plan approved under section 115A.84. The reviewing authority may attach conditions to its approval. Subd. 3. [IMPLEMENTATION.] The designation may be placed into effect no less than 60 days following the approval required in subdivision 2. The effective date of the designation must be specified at least 60 days in advance. If the designation is not placed into effect within two years of approval, the designation must be resubmitted to the reviewing authority for d approval or disapproval under subdivision 2, unless bonds have been issued to finance the resource recovery facility to which the designation applies. Subd. 4. [EFFECT.] The designation is binding on all political subdivisions, landfill operators, solid waste generators, and solid waste collectors in the designation area. Subd. 5. [AMENDMENTS.] Amendments to a designation ordinance must be submitted to the reviewing authority for approval. The reviewing authority shall approve the amendment if the amendment is in the public interest and in furtherance of (5 the state olicie p s and purposes expressed in section 115A.02. If the reviewing authority does not act within 90 days, the 1 cc amendment is approved. pf ?� b€ 115A.87 [JUDICIAL REVIEW.] An action challenging a designation must be brought within 60 days of the approval of the designation by the reviewing authority. The action is subject to section 562.02. 115A.88 [SERVICE GUARANTEE.] The district or county may not arbitrarily terminate, suspend, or curtail services provided to any person required by contract or designation ordinance to use designated facilities without the consent of the person or without just cause. a 115A.89 [SUPERVISION OF IMPLEMENTATION.] The reviewing authority shall: (1) require regular reports on the implementation of each designation; (2) periodically evaluate whether each designation as implemented has accomplished its purposes and whether the designation is in the C public interest and in furtherance of the state policies and purposes expressed in section 115A.02; and (3) report periodically to the legislature on its conclusions and recommendations. 115A.893 [PETITION FOR EXCLUSION.] Any person proposing to own or operate a resource recovery facility using waste materials subject to a designation ordinance may petition the waste district or county for exclusion of the materials from the designation ordinance. In order to qualify for the exclusion of materials under this section, the petitioner shall submit with the petition a written description of the proposed facility, its intended location, its waste supply sources, purchasers of its products, its design capacity, and other information that the district or county may reasonably require. The district or county, after appropriate notice and hearing, shall issue a written decision with findings of fact and conclusions on all material issues. The district or county shall grant the petition if it determines that: (a) the materials will be processed at the resource recovery facility, and (b) the exclusion can be implemented without impairing the financial viability of the designated facility or impairing contractual obligations or preventing the performance of contracts by the facility owner or operator, the district or county, or_users of the facility. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the district or county may appeal to the reviewing authority. The review is confined to the record. The decision of the reviewing authority must be based on the standards stated in this section. If the reviewing authority approves the petition, the designation ordinance must be amended in 1( conformance with the decision of the reviewing authority. The petition may be amended during the proceedings by areement between the petitioner and the district or county. WASTE TIRES 115A.90 [DEFINITIONS.] Subdivision 1. [APPLICABILITY.] The definitions in this section apply to sections 115A.90 to 115A.914. Subd. 2. [AGENCY.] "Agency" means the pollution control agency. Subd. 3. [COLLECTION SITE.] "Collection site" means a permitted site, or a site exempted from permit, used for the storage of waste tires. Subd. 4. [COMMISSIONER.] "Commissioner" means the commissioner of energy and economic development. Subd. 5. [PERSON.] "Person" has the meaning given in section 116.06, subdivision 8. Subd. 6. [PROCESSING.] "Processing" means producing or manufacturing usable materials, including fuel, from waste tires including necessary incidental temporary storage activity. 1 Subd. 7. [TIRE.] "Tire" means a pneumatic tire or solid tire for motor vehicles as defined in section 169.01. Subd. 8. (TIRE COLLECTOR.] "Tire collector" means a person who owns or operates a site used for the storage, collection, or en deposit of more than 50 waste tires. is Subd. 9. [TIRE DUMP.] "Tire dump" means an establishment, ly site, or place of business without a required tire collector or tire processor permit that is maintained, operated, used, or 1gs allowed to be used for storing, keeping, or depositing or unprocessed waste tires. he ' Subd. 10. [TIRE PROCESSOR.] "Tire processor" means a e person engaged in the processing of waste tires. Subd. 11. [WASTE TIRE.] "Waste tire" means a tire that is no longer suitable for its original intended purpose because of 1e Wear, damage, or defect. :g ion 115A.902 [PERMIT; TIRE COLLECTORS, PROCESSORS.] 3ted r° F ` Subdivision 1. [PERMIT REQUIRED.] A tire collector or tire processor with more than 500 waste tires shall obtain a permit a X r_: (7 4 . 0 1\ - i '', .? - `I W o ,A ` 4-- •n co ' J w ti Q v v Ni —7 11 ` I v L - W 0 -vJ- � J 'c ~ - �= ------ 1 11 ,...____ -/ J ' i '131 C : . 5 co b.. N .-. .5 .2 C i0 u U d .0 N .+ -g) C .. 0 O y .� 0.- 0 o ' Y s.�0� g co G . a. E 4 u^ 14 � ��og8 c 3 3 c� ;:00"c o _ O O 4 ZA C0 03 ) I' y d. N U � 00 C v ' R 7 ' ° N O C R 6 0 . 3'° ` m"" c 3 a 4 i 0 � R v oa, c 0 io c c d O ; 5a° ■t°2'o.>a52 • 21.11 1 1 V y-0 .• 0 = N N • 0 ° sr ' C c r. , — 4 E p E c O E 4 u 0 R . rw ' C -C'- u 4 a o gy N — RR c 0 ." " t.g 14 2 ° °' oo` °'• c 8. I E =' aJ — N �d .cae .' " <9 = c.°a I_. o � � • °• ° - c c ° .2 0N . V+ N ° z t.^. U ca - C • . 4 ~• O .0 .N. O C C' a) au - 0 °° • r"il M R 0 U ,° 0 s U R o c — co �''O O 4x o 8•� 3 V: 6, 4 �' 3 - N 401 04 =GGC• „Ox0a�7�O� - 2I-aci 4 3 w N 4 > a�... . . u E .5.., cV a. . EN= V co .'3 to.. . E v* N N N a t C . u 4) N ° C 4 alma R U Nom E � ° w, D. -0: v .. { y co .st "' � U V t. • ,-. 0 ' >; . limi 7.0 E....5. = U • U I.U.. I.• ~O C• C e t R .. R a e Oc ow os co 0 • °a ® ° O E U R U C t 6 U C C K co E� u. 0 U mi 0rA8 O 4 .0oo.- c CO c ue v oa• =3�E u C 4 c dwC d � .4 u ▪ °C O a E R C RS U .., cii) .. _ R ▪ H "M. .ON . 2 U. R 6 ., «. >, v. ... M J C �4 � 7 `.3 . R , ... n °'y E N 3 Q ea u .. .. �� H ? d.� 30 §.0 ccaoc� a, N o • �� -x o c lag �` g co) et 4 0 . �. O C ... ". ( '4) F O 0 C to ® 4r _N .+ . 7 C . 0 4 6 . -Lo ..C — ” • R tg 5) =O tC L NGC. O...+ O O2 a o s..� ONO W O 0 O N U a.. N U b r Q) y V °'. V° 'f'.. ..i... g. E -°v a)oo O.0OUo k' c.o0E a)0>' a . ,t 1, o, x Cd — y • a 1 ,7 T R ,..64 ∎-• 4 b . O �' a) • y3 > ate. 7o�.n� a s � .. 3pp 4 tC > u. O , a.) .2- 0 ai'C R p E DD u 7 O N MMINI cu -0 ow cil o ) w 0.0 0 A oU U P vi I-- . v c N .- H ...7 I icl G\ A CCU I I Continuea from page its fill - abatement promise. Its most re- Reuter's difficulties have ramifica- "Our position was that the Metropol- cent report to regulatory officials, tions for Hennepin County. Some itan Council was buying a piggy in a filed about two months late, indicates top county officials opposed the Met - poke," said county Commissioner that between July and September it ropolitan Council's decision to allow Jeff Spartz. paid to dump in a landfill about 75 Reuter to obtain a share of the coun- percent of the garbage it received. It ty's garbage. Added colleague Randy Johnson, "I costs the company between $20 and think it's kind of an emperor- wears- $30 a ton to dump the garbage in a Under an ordinance enacted to meet no clothes situation where we all landfill. the Legislature's directive to quit want it to work but the facts indicate sending raw garbage to landfills, the otherwise so far." Reuter officials said Friday that the county eventually will order that gar - report is in error and that the actual bage be hauled to several designated Minneapolis officials talked to Reu- figure is closer to 50 percent. But processing facilities, including the ter for months about supplying gar - even that figure is much higher than • downtown Minneapolis incinerator bage for the plant before discussions Reuter's initial claim that it could and a Northern States Power plant in reached an impasse a year ago over find commercial use for all but 10 Elk River. Both plants are under con - several points. percent of the garbage it processed. struction. But the Metropolitan Council voted in early 1985 to allow "The Reuter facility may be a risky That's mainly because there are ma- Reuter a share of this garbage to fuel economic venture," a staff memo jor roadblocks to the marketing of its plant. said. "The marketability of its com- two of the three major products from post, recyclable materials, and pellets which Reuter expected revenue. In doing so, the council overrode a is questionable." staff recommendation that Reuter Reuter hoped to turn at least 50 not get the trash because it didn't However, securities analyst Hamil- percent of its trash into fuel. meet the statutory requirements for ton sees more promise. "Conceptual- such an exemption. The firm ly its very appealing. It's a very prov- ; But a Minnesota Pollution Control couldn't get its plant operating quick- en technology," he said. But he add - Agency requirement that any boiler ly enough, lacked supply contracts ed that problems including the politi- using Reuter's refuse - derived fuel and lacked contracts from buyers, the cal environment surrounding garbage • conduct expensive tests for pollut- staff said. issues and the need to line up garbage 1 ants has effectively shut down the in- supplies and buyers for products are state market for the fuel. James Reu- Yet if Reuter quits or fails in its dogging the venture's short -term ter maintains that tests being con- venture, the county bears a potential- profitability. ducted at the Argonne National Lab- ly expensive legal responsibility for - oratory near Chicago will reveal "a arranging a new way to keep the The plant's losses have helped de- lily -white clean fuel" that will satisfy exempted garbage out of the landfill. press Reuter stock from a high of the MPCA. Unlike the incinerator and the Elk $22.50 a share last March to $12.75 c River plant, Reuter has not promised before the Oct. 19 market crash. It - Moreover, several public -owned to pay the county for the costs of has been trading in the $7 to $8 range ' heating plants in Minnesota that ex- disposal of garbage if the facility recently. perimented with the fuel told the Star doesn't work. Tribune that it didn't perform to The Eden Prairie plant's success is 1 their specifications or would require "My concern is getting the garbage important to Reuter. That's because - expensive modifications. Reuter said back," said Genzlinger, the county's it bought the rights to distribute a 7 it has made limited out -of -state sales, top official concerned with trash. "I Swiss firm's waste - processing equip - but that these sales aren't very profit- really hope they make it because I ment, which it says is in operation in able. don't want it." more than 100 waste plants globally. The company also planned to turn But Reuter officials say the financial The Eden Prairie plant is the first use more than 35 percent of its garbage success of its plant is nearly inevita- of the technology in this country and into compost to be used for soil en- ble. The plant charges a fee of about its success would help Reuter per - e richment. But its efforts to locate a $28 per ton to haulers who bring suade lenders to finance more such _ composting facility near Waconia garbage to the plant. plants. were blocked by neighborhood oppo- _ sition and road problems. It's now "We need in the upper $40s to make Meanwhile, Reuter is seeking ap- i preparing an application for a second a go of it," James Reuter said. Ac- proval from the council and state site of 130 acres near Chaska, but cording to county officials, the gar- agencies to expand its trash flow to residents there are opposed too. This bage - disposal fee should rise to at 800 tons daily, seeking the additional makes opening a compost facility least this level when the county in- garbage from Scott, Carver and Hen - this year problematic. yokes its ordinance power to direct nepin counties. Hennepin County of- garbage to the expensive Minneapolis ficials have questioned why the com- The company said it has found buy- and Elk River plants. That could pany should get additional garbage ers for the metals, plastics, and card- happen next year. when it is having trouble processing board it has plucked from incoming its 400 -ton allotment. garbage. But some officials are less optimistic. • NATION ri Ti'a More than a Curbside Issue _, ..: u � ,# , " , adelphia with easily accessible dumping R �� ,� ,7 � s t ..-, privileges closed two years ago. The city {tea ("" =--�, a now must haul its refuse as far as 200 miles � Y " A += �* ` ' ' t pay and a $65 a ton for landfill space. Seattle, 5 P"'° K . : a , ' • which had to close its last city-owned land- $Iir , fill early last year, estimates that every ton f recycled material will ' o save $50 in waste i �-a_ r --ix e r: 1 t P_ disposal costs, making the city's $1 million r ' =, ,. r' ' -, _; f a year recycling program profitable by . ,erg, „ ✓ = I 1 , 1992. Over the past two years the average ;46'11' ~ r dumping fees nationwide have increased 30 e r i i s percent to $13.43 a ton, according to the ,- M n . 1. .. _ - National Solid Wastes Management Asso- _ ciation, a lobbying group for the waste 111 - industry based in Washington. However, in s P ' ' the Northeast, where the landfill shortage • t ¢ .. 46. .. 1 . b i s most severe, dumping fees of more than E $50 a ton are common, and municipalities ' " t that must haul trash long distances may pay t,z, " � 4 ' ` , ? g as much as $140 a ton. :� �- � - = -.- - "',,-<- R. . c2 As more places turn to recycling, the Battle plan: Seattle is ready to start a curbside recycling initiative next month. concern is that collected materials will satu- -,- rate the often volatile recycling markets. SUMMARY: As the costs of trash disposal mount and as fewer sites for "Governmental entities looking to reduce • dumping are available, solid waste is becoming more than a storage the costs of collection and landfill need to problem for states and municipalities. Many are turning to extensive realize that recycling doesn't actually take recycling programs in their war against growing piles of garbage. place until the items are made into some- thing and sold again;' says Dale Gubbels, one are the days when only the begin in June. Residents would be required president of the National Recycling Coali- environmentally aware recycled to use clear plastic bags for nonrecyclable tion in Lincoln, Neb. trash. Now it's a matter of eco- garbage. Sacks found holding glass, met- Markets for recycled materials vary nomics, even law. State and local govem- als, clothing or other recyclable items greatly. The aluminum industry, which can ments, faced with acute landfill shortages would be left at the curb, and the resident save 95 percent of the energy needed in its .k J . and escalating waste disposal costs, are would be subject to fines. The enforcement manufacturing process by substituting trying to temper the trash glut with legisla- efforts will be necessary for the city to recyclable items for raw materials, buys Lion and ordinances that promote and, in achieve its goal of recycling 50 percent of everything that comes on the market. The some cases, require residential recycling. its trash by 1991, according to the city. glass market is considered marginal, while In Seattle, brightly colored bins will be Even places already recycling are push - the demand fo: te to - llow - thee dotting the streets on garbage collection ing for stricter measures. Since 1979 rest- economy, says Marge Franklin of Franklin days as the city's voluntary curbside recy- dents of Montgomery County, Md., have Associates, municipal waste management .,, cling initiative begins next month. Resi- been required by law to set bundled news- consultants in Kansas City, Kan. dents will be given containers to hold alu- papers out at curbside. A recently proposed Consequently, many of the new recy- minum, tin, paper and glass. Set out with program would expand the list of required cling regulations stipulate market develop- the trash on designated days, the recyclable recyclables to include glass, metal and alu- ment efforts in addition to collection initia- goods will be hauled away free of charge. minum containers. Public and private re- tives. In New Jersey, widely considered to • • Regulations set to go into effect this cycling efforts in the county handle about have one of the most comprehensive state - April will require Connecticut residents to 13 percent of the 550,000 tons of trash it wide mandatory recycling programs in the sort out cardboard, metal, glass, paper, generates a year; the new plan targets 22 nation, the law requires that at least 45 .. I, storage batteries, waste oil and such yard percent of the county's garbage. percent of the state's paper procurement be waste as brush and leaves. The state is Whether initiating recycling efforts or recycled goods. The state provides tax .a setting up at least seven regional processing beefing up existing programs, states and credits and low interest loans to businesses 1 centers to handle the items. As each center municipalities are attempting to fight grow- involved in recycling or development of becomes operational, nearby communities ing piles of garbage. Meanwhile, the num- products using recycled materials. will have three months to begin residential ber of landfills available for dumping is Even with ideal market conditions and collection. A law passed last year mandates dwindling rapidly. A "not in my backyard" full -blown collection programs, most coin- , that by 1991 communities will not be al- mentality along with rising concerns about munities can expect recycling to reduce the lowed to put any designated recyclable the environmental impact of landfills on waste amount by only 30 percent or so, says items into state landfills or incinerators. groundwater supplies make finding sites for Franklin. Greater reduction in the amount Philadelphia is considering the creation new landfills a political nightmare. of rubbish, she adds, will come about only of Clean Squads to monitor compliance The result is escalating waste disposal with more regulation. �: with the curbside recycling program it will costs. The last landfill providing Phil- — Susan Dillingham _ 24 0 INSIGHT / JANUARY 18, 1988 t f ' " t ill z r fi-17 —ss_f. . M frfl1 -'t'Y 1 t i lffrf �r ', , T ff' t? 4'. , '' r } ' tftryf iTrTiw* .4- ef,. 4,59 :1234 '89 l '.:1.?,1231 � .' 23455 ?E9 v234 0 ca3 ?J 6 , 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 • Even Col. Thomas Mansperger, the De- ' °x' ' *Open - - � : w fense Department's metric coordinator, rec- a ,l�: a a i '2 a 71 5 91 4 a z � a .' 1U a' i 3 . s" a d ' _ _ s a z �� - ` ognizes the sensitivity of social conversion. He says that under the department's new ,' ., ; ; J hanging th e equipment �,;, directive "we're c that people fight with. We're not going to to go to a dual system if you can't convert Today, General Motors cars are virtually change the size of a loaf of bread in the to a solely metric system one day," Russell 100 percent metric. As the other big car- local commissary" says. "So that put a lid on it ... before we makers followed suit, metric enthusiasts "Selling the social change is going to even got started." made the U.S. auto industry their favorite have to take time," Undenvood says. The American people may have shouted example of successful change. And be- "We've got to start building the consensus down the metric system, bc.t to Valerie cause most Americans couldn't care less by getting people to say, 'Hey, eventually Antoine, executive director of the U.S. whether the thickness of steel in their cars this has got to happen. Why don't we plan Metric Association, the Seventies are still was measured by inch or millimeter, this and do it right ?' Introduce it carefully considered the glory days. "It was very conversion has not generated any howls of Don't make all the little old ladies nervous:' exciting," she says. "There was a sense that protest. If Congress had mandated metric con - you were really accomplishing something, That's why some observers say the les- version 13 years ago, Americans probably ... that something was going to happen." son of the past decade is not to abandon the would be used to the system by now, and An engineer for Litton Industries Inc. dream of a metric America but to find a all this would be moot. The 1975 act man - and an ardent metric proponent for 25 new strategy. dated only education and voluntary conver- years, Antoine partly blames her own brethren for the failure of high-profile ini mace x1 5 ` W ; . . tiatives such as dual- dimension road signs . � `-, , 4. "The pro -metric people sat on their hands l '� 'L ��€ �y�r • and figured, `Oh boy, isn't that nice' ?' But I a N fs - -- � ,�` the people who opposed it wrote the high- d ,' e , z way department, she says. : - .4, ,- , Over the past decade, efforts to offs - ..'1 a a cially adopt the metric system not only \.,..--, FAIL . 'F ' V ER _' 6 � --` vanished from the public agenda — in 1982 I I' ,, 1 k President Reagan abolished the U.S. Met- I , � > � ric Board, which had been established in t ' • 1975 in conjunction with Congress's has made- inroads i pas X �- . ' '''.v, ' 'gyp, • sage of the Metric Conversion Act — but ,, � - .1 4 , , t' ` 0 : � ' t the U.S. Metric Association has shrunk -r• , h It Ig + , } ? v ( ' q��Y � 0 from 3,500 members to 2,500. Some of '�`; ' r ' '{ �� err \ •. them just kind of gave up and went looking ° `" t a �'t x `',° :Y �, �" �� ; Antoine says. "Some 17 " , t �"t 3t �'; ' - 4 ,' . i } 2 ,people.dLeC1_2f:' �_ ,._ •a T�� 4 v+ s , ; ti 'y , ,�� s.' _ ° i for other crusades Steadily and quietly thougt the metric --- e l tc f � .;,.' C r T 7�� 1 - Y. G t h a � �, � , t ' t � -_ Q tj • rn nnto corporate r 3 - '� r , tip, ��� 5 America in recent years. General Motors Corp., for example, decided almost 15 . .:,,,, ' ._ 'z -' . . ` - ° - _ • r , ' ef ° ' • <;,,. w years ago that it would be in its best inter- The outcry over signs with miles and kilometers showed how far metric had to go. ests to convert its passenger car compo- nents to metric. "I think the way in which metric was sion to metric use and set no target date for presented to the American people was metric to become the predominant mea- T he energy crisis of the early Seven- wrong," says G.T. Underwood, director of surement system in the United States. It ties created a demand in the United the Commerce Department's Office of forbade compulsory implementation of the States for smaller cars, which the Metric Programs. With a staff of four and metric system. Europeans had experience designing and a $250,000 budget, Underwood's office is Albert M. Navas, president of the busi- producing. To learn from foreign engi- the remnant of a once conspicuous federal ness - supported American National Metric neers, General Motors concluded that "it commitment to metrication. Council, draws an analogy to daylight sav- was easier for us to talk to them if we did Underwood says the strategy in the Sev- ing time. "There was a hue and cry about it all in metric," says H. William Ellison, enties ignored the fact that there are two that back in the 1930s and 1940s," he says. the automaker's director of engineering metric conversions, not one: the industrial "But Congress said, `Hey, we're going to standards. (as with restandardized cars) and the social have it.' " And we all got used to it. The Chevrolet Chevette, introduced in (as with new highway signs). Frankly, "that Why, then, shouldn't Congress mandate 1976, was the first General Motors car to social side has no economic reward," he metrication? "Well;' says Navas, "that's a • have "significant metric content," Ellison says. "There's no benefit for a woman in philosophical argument that I, as a conser- says. "Bolts, hydraulic fittings, that type of the kitchen changing to metric to cook vative, don't even want to get into." thing." with." — David Mills L v INSIGHT / JANUARY 18, 1988 n 23 M E E T I N G N O T I C E The Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will hold a Regular Meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 8 March 1988 in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota Packet information will be distributed to Commission members. For more information about this meeting, please call Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100.