HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.e. Resource Recovery - Winona Tour; County Recycling Program; Ash Facility � • • P C). E3(�X 51f7
� � ������ Q� � � � � � � � �Sffi 14i7��1�1 ;�f� \N
� � � � � V�G�VVL/�,� ROS�MOUNT. MiNN(�r)�i�l� 5�f�EiF3 �
612 A23 d.ttt
�genda Item 5e
Tt): Mayor, City Council, City Adrninistrator '
FRpM: Dean Johnson, Director ot Cammunity Devetopment
DATE: 4cEober 28, 19t1$ '
SUB,T: November l, 1488 Agenda Ite� Se
5e. R���urce ,�.g�QYerv - Recvcl#ng �nll�v
Attached is a memo from the county regarding the need for xecycting centecs fe�r
the "disposat" of recyclables generated from the pending locai xecycling programs.
The memo describes the departure from the county's "Post discussions , . .
foeused on a (central) Iviaterials Recovexy Facility (MTtF)." t be�ame aware abaut
a fnQnth ago that staff and consultant r�commendations to the county board +vere
ab�ndoning kh� idea for a A�IRF, You may recall that all of the county �ublic
m�etings on the incinerator highli�hted ihe cc�-lacated MRF. This was an ahvic�us
gesture to illustrate one elemenE in the county's exfraordinary commitment ($4-6
miliion) tt� recycling. It also representcd onc �f thcase p�tential "}�lums" to the
host community.
I strennously abjected to county staff that the MRF commiEment could not be
abandoned. This rnemo carefuliy alludes to the practieality; in establishin� two
"short term" Recyelables Collection Centers "in the urbanfsuburban eommunities."
It leaves the door open ta ihe MRF c�ncept in the future, but without any
commitment whatsoever. This current clilemma reflects the newness and rapidiy
chat�ging requirements in the solid waste arena.
In fairness to the county, it should be understo�d' that their position or policy on
this matter must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December. It is
impossible to make the commitment on the co-Iocated MRF at this Eime, because
the location and/or approval of the incinerator won't be determined for perha�s
another year, In the meantime, rn�st or at( of ihe cities will bc colfierting
reeyclables in the next severat mc�nt#�s, which wili rec�aire some sort Qf stagin� t�r
tr�nsfer facility.
There are really only two options for these staging facilities: each city operates
it's own as part of it's own reeyc(ing prc�gram or the county se#s up a cou�le of
"regionatized" [acilities. Because vf the timing oT' our prc�geam and the absence of
a county facility we will have ta define pro�isions for a local faciliEy in our RFP
for the recycling program.
My reeommendation is to go on record acknowiedging the need for either local or
county staging facilities to keep pace with the pending recyciing programs. But I
would aiso recommend the city go on reeord arguing that these are sta� gap
measures and temporary at best. The lc�ng term so(ution should inetude the �
commitment for the central MRF. N�'ithout existing e��idence to the cc�ntrarY, the
county should continue l� stress the lc�ng term strategy far central proeetsing and
marketing oC reeyci-�bles.
November i, 1988 eeting
` � ' pgenda Item 5e - �urce Ree�►very" ,
Puge Two
Resource Recovery - Ash Disposition
The county has not reached any conclusic�ns on its preferred alternative far the
disposal of incinerator ash. Cnunty staff l�ave suhrnilted an issues paper lo the
board, outlining alternatives. ?'he PCA has also entered the picture, suggesting
they may require the method of ash disposal to become an integral par# of the
FIS on the incinerator.
The Physical Development Commiltee of the county board heard a presentation
tast Tnesday on a recycling option for ash, by a company from Oklahoma City
catled USPCI. City staff have had direct contact by U5PCI, regarding their
interests in the ash handling business. They claim to be capable of converting
80 - 95% �f the ash, in�luding the -patentially hazardous elements of the ash, into
"permanentiy bonded ag�regate peitets." Their scenaria is quite impressive and
they claim the EPA has certified their lab tests on the "safety" of the recycted
product.
USPGI has been working with Anoka and Hennepin eounties for several manths
and wilt be responding' to their "Ash RFP" next' month. USPCI touched on the
cost/benefit and marketing feasibility of a three-county ash recycling facility, I
can :onty surmise Ro$emount may represent a potential host community ta them
because of the proposed lacation o€ the eounty's in�einerator.
We have been invited, alon� with Anoka, Hennepin and Dakota Caunty of fieials to
tour a "pilot" facility in Detroit on Friday, November 18. The city would be
responsible for the transportation to Detroit, which is approximately $500. In one
sense, the timing appears out of sequence. We have no idea what Dakota County
rnay recommend for ast� dis�osal. It �s obvious why Anoka and Hennepin officiats
(4-5 eommissianers and 3-5 staft'j are committed to the tc�ur already. I have no
idea if Dakota Countq will be re�resented. Dan Maher and Gary Erickson did see
the facility in September,'along with Anoka and Hennepin officials.
I'm not speculating on the destiny a€ this project, but it's obvious 'whaE the
possibilities are. Perhaps the carE is noE before the hvrse. Perhaps this is an
opportunity to evalnate a situation ourselves before it is determined by others.
( ��f�� �.I_)�L� rYl(,/�/�/-
t . .
�A K� / 1 �,/����Y JEfFREYf?�it;CQNNEtL
1 DEPARTMENT OF P�ANNING & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT i��21 a,?t-t t�S
• 7300 WEST 147th STREET. SUtTF rt503 APF'L[ 1�AlLF'r' �fl1NNE4(?TF; ��r�l;':
` ^ ��.,�„
- �-w,� :;�,
`�� '`,,,;
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: City Administrators
Local Solid Waste Staff Group
Dakota Caunty Waste Haulers
Interested Recycling Vendors
FROM: Jeffrey J. Conneil , Planning and Program Management 0irector
DATE: October 21, 1988
SUBJECT: Recyc1ing Implementation Strategy
As you are probably aware, Dakota County must submit a Recycling
Implementation Strategy to the Metropolitan Council for its approvai . The
5trategy must identify the programs that will be implemented and methods that
Dakota Gounty and the communities in the County wi11 use to meet the County's
recYcling goals by 1990.
Impartant components of a recycling pragram are collection, processing, and
marketing 4f the materials. The Dakata County 8oard of Commissioners, with
input from communities and the County Solid Waste Management Advisory
Comnission, has developed some specific recycling impleroentation pnlacies `
regarding the collection of recyclable mater#als. At a 1�orkshop held by the
County Board on October il, County staff and consultants presented
recammendations regarding tMe proeessing and marketing af recyclable
materials.
Discussions have been held with some haulers, recycling firms, and corr�nunities
on proposed callection and marketing arrangements. A11 have indicated a need
and desire for some assistance with marketing. Past discussions on the nature
of such assistance have foeused on a Materials Recavery faeility. However,
the existing collection system and antieipated community programs' indicate
that the most economically-sound and flexib�e processing and market�r�g system,
at least for the short term, would be the establishment of two Recyclab�es
Collection Centers in the urban/suburban cv�nunities. General facil�ty
characteristics would inciude:
AN E9UAL OPPQRTUNITY EMPIOYER
� r ~ . ". . . . . . . � • �.. � . . . . . . . . .
�CtObet" 21� X�8$
Fage 2
v Designed for acceptance, off ioadin9, storage and transfer to market '
of separated, not car�minqled, recyclables co1�ected primariiy by
haulers and other par�ies;
o Minimal amount of material processing {magnetic separativn af cans
followed by fitat�ening and bl�wing�,
o Cauld also function as buy-back/drop-off center for the pubtic;
o ' 10 - 50 TPD capacity; and
o Acceptance of residential and commercial/industrial coliections.
While a full scale Materials Recavery Facility (MRf) is not reear�nended at
this time, it may b� an option for the long term. Long term options 4n
marketing and processing include:
o Continuing aperation of the tw� Recyclable Collection Centers beyond
the initial two year period;
o Setting up an additional Collection Center in the urban/suburban
area;
o Moving to a full-scale, mechanized materials recovery facitity
(MRF);
o Withdrawing from the total Callection Center system and not
replacing it;
o Issuing short term subsidies to eollectors to offset market
fluctuations; and
o Working with a regional consortium for marketing of recyclabie
material s.
Key factors to evaluate will be;
o Now easiiy and efficiently materials are handled at the Collection
Centers;
a The quantities of materials that are brought to ` the CoYlection
Centers;
o How many refuse haulers and other collectors bring materials to the
Collection Centers;
o Whether or not the Collection Centers attract citizens because a
drap-off and buy-back facility is available to them;
o Whether or not the eontractar can operate in a cost=effective
manner;
� � i •
October 21, 1988
Page 3
o What level of resources, both personnel time and 'financial support,
the County must invest in the coltection centers.
During a iengthy discussion at the October ll �orkshop, questions arose as to
wheth�r or not the Centers would �e used, what incentives wou1d ne�d to be
prov�ded to insure use of the Centers, and if there was interest on the part
of the existing was�e management sector in participating in development af the
Centers over a 5hort-term period flf t�►o to three years,
' County staff has been directed ta contact haulers, vendars, and c�ties to
obtain infarmal feedback, comments, and suggestions to the Recyc3ables
Collection Center concept that is currently being considere�! by �akota
County.
We woul d appreci ate your co�nents and suggesti ons i n wri ti ng, but woul d al so
be happy to diseuss your thoughts with you over the telephone. Please have
your comments to our office by Navember 14, 1988 in order that we may have
sufficient time to prepare a report fiar the County Suard. I hope we can
continue to wark tagether toward implementing a successful and economically-
sound recycling program for Dakata Caunty.
RIS-T-1